Teachers' Immediate Oral Feedback in Speaking Lessons For 11th-Form Students - Le Thi Hong Phuc - Qh.12.e

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
LÊ THỊ HỒNG PHÚC
TEACHERS’ IMMEDIATE ORAL FEEDBACK

IN SPEAKING LESSONS FOR 11TH-FORM STUDENTS
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
Hanoi, May 2010
1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
LÊ THỊ HỒNG PHÚC
TEACHERS’ IMMEDIATE ORAL FEEDBACK

IN SPEAKING LESSONS FOR 11TH-FORM STUDENTS
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
SUPERVISOR: CAO THUY HONG, M.A.
Hanoi, May 2010
2
ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Lê Thị Hồng Phúc, 061.E12, being a candidate for the
degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in
the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

the library should be accessible for the purpose of the study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care,
loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature:
Lê Thị Hồng Phúc
May 4th, 2010
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude and

indebtedness to my supervisor Cao Thuy Hong, M.A for her careful
instructions and valuable advice during the conduct of my research.
My deep appreciation also goes to the teachers of the Faculty of English

Language Teacher Education for their interesting lectures that provided me the
strong inspiration for this study. Especially, I would like to express my
heartfelt thanks to Tran Hien Lan, M.A, Luc Dinh Quang, M.A and Nguyen
Chi Duc, M.A and other lecturers of ELT for their constructive suggestions.
I am grateful to the teachers and students in Nguyen Binh Khiem High

School, Hanoi for their willingness to respond to my survey questionnaires and
interviews. My thanks are also addressed to the principal and the teacher of
this school who created chances for my observation scheme.
I would also like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the authors of the

books, journal articles, etc. listed in the reference for their ideas that have been
reviewed and developed in my paper.
My sincere thanks also go to all of my readers for their constructive

comments on this thesis paper.
Last but not least, I am indebted to my family and friends for their
encouragement and support during the course of my writing.
4
ABSTRACT
This study tackles the practice of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in
speaking lessons. Specifically, the researcher puts focus on the target teachers
and students’ perceptions of this feedback type, contents and types of teachers’
immediate corrective and positive feedback. The research was carried out
among ten teachers and 155 students in Nguyen Binh Khiem High School, Ha
Noi. The data were collected by means of survey questionnaires, semi-
structured interview and classroom observation. It was firstly unveiled from
the results that the majority of the target teachers and students show the
positive perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral feedback provision in
speaking lessons. Secondly, in terms of the contents of teachers’ on-the-spot
corrective feedback, feedback on form, especially on grammatical mistakes is
of more frequent use than feedback on meaning. Positive feedback on
students’ effort seems to be preferred to that on students’ ability. Lastly,
regarding different types of immediate corrective and positive feedback used,
though teachers and students had different preferences for the types of
corrective feedback, they are unanimous in that of positive one. Basing on
these findings, this paper offered some pedagogical propositions in the hope of
making contribution to the improvement of the practice of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................4
Abstracts.............................................................................................................5
Table of contents................................................................................................6
List of tables, figures, and abbreviations............................................................9
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
I.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study...........................................12

I.2. Aims and objectives of the study...............................................................13
I.3. Research questions.....................................................................................13
I.4. Scope of the study......................................................................................13
I.5. Methods of the study..................................................................................14
I.6.Organisation................................................................................................15
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
II.1. Overview of speaking skill........................................................................16

II.1.1. Definition of speaking skill..........................................................16
II.1.2. Elements of speaking skill...........................................................17
II.1.2.1. Accuracy.........................................................................17
6
II.1.2.2. Fluency...........................................................................18
II.1.3. Teaching speaking skill...............................................................18
II.1.3.1. Methods of teaching speaking skill................................18
II.1.3.2. Stages of a speaking lesson............................................19
II.2. Overview of teacher’s immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons….19
II.2.1. Feedback in speaking lesson........................................................19
II.2.1.1. Definition of feedback....................................................19
II.2.1.2. Roles of feedback in language classrooms.....................21
II.2.1.3. Types of feedback...........................................................22
II.2.2. Teacher’s immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons.............25
II.2.2.1. Content of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
in speaking lessons......................................................................25
II.2.2.1.1. Contents of immediate corrective feedback.....25
II.2.2.1.2. Contents of immediate positive feedback……27
II.2.2.2. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback.......28
II.2.2.2.1. Types of immediate corrective feedback..........28
II.2.2.2.2 Types of immediate positive feedback...............32
II.2.2.3. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’
immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons...............................33
II.2.2.3.1. Teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral
feedback in speaking lessons........................... .................33
II.2.2.3.2. Students’ perceptions of immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons......................................34
II.2.2.3.3. Mismatch between teachers’ and
students’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback............36
7
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
III.1. Participants and participant selection method.......................................38

III.2. Data collection instruments......................................................................39
III.3. Data collection procedure........................................................................43
III.4. Data analysis method...............................................................................45
III.5. Data analysis procedure...........................................................................46
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
IV. 1. Results.....................................................................................................47
IV.1.1. Teachers and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons.......................................................... 47
IV.1.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback........................55
IV.1.3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback.............................63
IV.2. Discussion of the results......................................................................... 69
IV.2.1. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons.......................................................... 69
IV.2.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback for
11th-form students in speaking lessons.................................................. 72
IV.2.3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback for
11th-form students in speaking lesson.................................................... 75
IV.3. Pedagogical suggestions for improving the teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons for 11th-form students in Nguyen
8
Binh Khiem high school, Hanoi....................................................................... 76
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
V.1. Summary ..................................................................................................80

V.2. Contributions of the study.........................................................................81
V.3. Limitations of the study............................................................................82
V.4. Suggestions for further study....................................................................83
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES & ABBREVIATIONS
List of Tables Page
Table 1: Classes distributed with survey questionnaires..................39
Table 2: Structure of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires...........41
Table 3: Structure of teachers’ and students’ interview...................42
Table 4: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective and
positive feedback............................................................... 57
9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Feedback types classified by Brookhart (1998)................22
Figure 2: Feedback types classified by Crane (2006)......................22
Figure 3: Importance of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
in speaking lessons.......................................................... 47
Figure 4: Advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
in speaking lessons .....................................................…...48
Figure 5: Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback
in speaking lessons........................................................... 50
Figure 6: Students’ desire for teachers’ immediate oral feedback
in speaking lessons............................................................ 51
Figure 7: When teachers want to give immediate feedback..............53
Figure 8: When students want to receive immediate feedback.........53
Figure 9: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback.......55
Figure 10: Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...........61
Figure 11: Students’ preferences for the contents of
teachers’ immediate positive feedback............................. 62
Figure 12: Teachers’ preferred types of immediate corrective
feedback.............................................................................63
Figure 13: Students’ ideas about the effectiveness of teachers’ types
10
of corrective feedback .......................................................65
Figure 14: Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...............67
Figure 15: Students’ preferences for types of teachers’
immediate positive feedback .............................................. 68
List of Abbreviations
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
Q: Question
T: Teacher
S: Student
Int: Interviewer
11
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
This chapter, which includes rationale for the study, aims, research
questions, scopes, methods and organisation of the study, would hopefully
provide readers an overview of the whole paper.
I.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study

English, which has long proved its significant role as the international
language, becomes more and more important in the context of globalization.
Vietnam, the country of full potential and burning ambition for falling in lines
with this trend are trying its best for international recognition. In other words,
good command of communicative English, especially speaking competence is
the matter of overriding concern for every single Vietnamese.
In response, English teaching and learning has been paid much attention
to, which is shown by remarkable changes in curriculum as well as teaching
methods i.e. the introduction of speaking skill in the new textbook to Upper
Secondary schools and the adoption of Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) which “emphasizes communicative competence” (Richards & Rodgers,
1986, p.35) As the matter of fact, speaking skill, “the most important aspect of
learning a second language” (Nunan, 1989, p.14), is still a challenge for
Vietnamese learners. Although teachers, in CLT approach, no longer play a
dominant role in class, their guidance and support have always been of
beneficial help to students. Especially, teachers’ feedback provision in
response to students’ mistakes as well as good performance is of significant
importance. Considered, “an integral part of the lesson” (Nguyen et al., 2003,
p.4), teacher’s feedback is always in bad need, like Fanselow (1987, p.267)
wrote, “to teach is to provide feedback”. Teachers’ feedback falls into written
and oral type and it can be delivered with or without delay. Notably, oral
12
feedback in general and immediate oral feedback in particular is the most
common occurrence in classroom and often employed in speaking lessons.
Hence, studying on immediate oral feedback, from the researcher’s viewpoint,
is very practical. In addition, according to Hattie & Timperley (2007
immediate oral feedback provision in tune with its effectiveness in teaching-
learning act has still been a big challenge when teachers’ feedback
management needs constant improvement.
Although teachers’ feedback has been the subject of many studies, most
of them tackled the matter of corrective feedback and written feedback and
mostly in writing lessons. Work on oral feedback and especially on immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons is quite small in number. Therefore, it is of
great importance to investigate the matter intensively in the context of teaching
and learning speaking skill. Hopefully, the research would make contribution
to completing the insightful understanding about teachers’ oral feedback,
enhancing teaching and learning English, accordingly.
I.2. Aims and objectives of the study
When conducting this study, the researcher’s primary aim is to obtain a

sharp insight into an issue of multi-facets and complexities, namely “teachers’
immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons” from the viewpoints of both
teachers and students. Specifically, the researcher purpose is to find out in what
way teachers’ immediate oral feedback is perceived by both teachers and 11th-
form students in Nguyen Binh Khiem High School, Hanoi and the current
situation of employing oral feedback including types and content of immediate
oral feedback used in speaking lessons for those students. Once these aims
have been achieved, the research would come to pedagogical implications
which might be useful for teaching-learning act.
13
I.3. Research questions
This study is specially designed to answer four following questions:
(1) What are teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons?
(2) What are 11th-form students’ perceptions of teacher’s immediate

oral feedback in speaking lessons?
(3) What are the contents of immediate oral feedback employed by

teachers in speaking lessons for 11th- form students?
(4) What are the types of immediate oral feedback delivered by

teachers in speaking lessons for 11th- form students?
I.4. Scope of the study
As opposed to a huge number of studies on corrective feedback and

written feedback, this study puts focus on immediate oral feedback. Especially,
the researcher would like to investigate types and contents of oral corrective
and positive feedback delivered on the spot by teachers. Also, instead of
feedback in writing lessons which has received much attention, the matter of
teachers’ immediate oral feedback in this study is investigated in speaking
lessons.
In addition, the data for the study is to be collected among 11th- form
students and teachers of English in Nguyen Binh Khiem High School, Hanoi.
I.5. Methods of the study
This paper employed both quantitative and qualitative method including

survey questionnaire, semi-structured interview and classroom observation.
Firstly, for its versality and straightforward data processing, survey

questionnaire was employed to quickly collect data from a large number of
14
teacher and student participants. Secondly, semi-structured interview was
carried out among teacher and student-participants to get more reliable data
and intensive understanding about the matter raised in the research questions.
Lastly, classroom observation was used as the indispensable method since it
offered a double-checking scheme of participants’ responses, helping
researcher to investigate the issue in practice with an objective view.
As for data analysis, the quantitative data from survey questionnaires

would be calculated and qualitative data from semi-structured interview and
classroom observation would be transcribed and summarized or transferred
into numerical form. Then, all the data would be presented in charts, tables and
graphs for better visualization.
I.6. Organisation
Chapter 1: Introduction to the whole paper is demonstrated.
Chapter 2: Through the “Literature Review”, the researcher presents the

findings closely related to the issue of the paper and provides background
knowledge for better understanding of the rest of the paper.
Chapter 3: All the details about “Methodology” including the three data
collection instruments, data collection methods and its procedure are discussed.
Chapter 4: Data analysis and discussion about results to find out the
relations of those results to the four research questions are presented.
Chapter 5: Conclusion for the whole paper is drawn.
Lastly, references and appendices including samples of the three data

collection methods, interview transcripts are also attached to the paper.
15
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter shows the researcher’s review of the literature related to the
paper’s issues. It is expected to provide readers with background knowledge
for better understanding of the rest of the paper.
II.1. Overview of speaking skill
II.1.1. Definition of speaking skill
As far as the researcher is concerned, there has been a myriad of

definitions of speaking. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English
(2009), speaking is “the action of conveying information or expressing ones’
thoughts and feelings in spoken languages.” (p.414)
Chaney (1998), however, considered speaking a process: “speaking is

the process of building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal or non-
verbal symbols in a variety of contexts” (p.13). Sharing the same viewpoint,
Florez (1999) added that speaking is an “interactive” process, which consists of
three main stages “producing, receiving and processing information.” (p.1)
In language teaching and learning, speaking is considered a skill to

practise and master. In this light, Nunan (2003, p.48) put it that “speaking is
the productive oral skill. It consists of producing systematic verbal utterance to
convey meaning.” Also considering speaking as a skill, Bygate (1987, p.3)
investigated the distinction between knowledge and skill in speaking lesson,
which he considered as crucial in the teaching of speaking. Indeed, to be a
good learner of speaking, studying knowledge of grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation, intonation, etc. is not enough but the skill to use this knowledge
to communicate successfully is indispensable.
16
In brief, there are different concepts of speaking, i.e. speaking as an
action, a process and a skill. In this study, the term “speaking” will be used to
refer to a skill related to language teaching and learning.
II.1.2. Elements of speaking skill
II.1.2.1. Accuracy
Recognizably, accuracy is one of the most important criteria to measure
one’s linguistic ability and to shelter language users from communication
breakdowns.
According to Richards (1992), accuracy concerns “the ability to produce

grammatically correct sentence.” (p.31). In other words, accuracy in language
means grammatical accuracy only. Nevertheless, in Thornbury (2000), the
terms “accuracy” seems to cover more than that. Specifically, speaking English
accurately means doing without or with few errors on not only grammar but
vocabulary and pronunciation, as well. He also set the clear scale for
assessment of accuracy.
+ Grammar: Students use correct words order, tenses, tense agreement,

etc. Students do not leave out articles, prepositions, or difficult tenses.
+ Vocabulary: Students have a range of vocabulary that corresponds to

the syllabus year list and uses words you have taught.
+ Pronunciation: Students speak and most people understand.
Even broader than that, Lim(1994) defined accuracy as “the ability to

use correct forms in which utterances do not contain errors affecting
phonological, syntactic, semantic and discourse features of the language.”
(p.23)
17
I.1.2.2. Fluency
Fluency is also used as a criterion to measure one’s speaking

competence. Speaking fluently means being able to communicate one’s ideas
without having to stop and think too much about what one is saying. Richards
(1992, p.141) defined fluency as “the features which gave speech the qualities
of being natural and normal.”
More specifically, Thornbury (2000) pointed out the criteria for

assessing fluency:
+ Lack of hesitation: Students speak smoothly, at a natural speech.

They do not hesitate long and it is easy to follow what they are saying.
+ Length: Students can put ideas together to form a message or an

argument. They can make not only the simplest of sentence patterns but also
complex ones to complete the task.
+ Independence: Students are able to express their ideas in a number of

ways, keep talking and ask questions, etc. to keep the conversation going.
II.1.3. Teaching speaking skill
II.1.3.1. Methods of teaching speaking skill

So far, teaching foreign language in general and teaching speaking skill
in particular has experienced three main methods, i.e. grammar-translation,
audio-lingual and communicative language teaching (CLT), respectively.
Whereas the two previous methods show a big number of drawbacks resulting
in learners’ failure to make achievement in speaking skill, CLT which
emphasizes “learning to communicate through interaction in the target
language.” (Nunan, 1991, p.56) considerably enhances students’
communicative skill. In the CLT classrooms, students are supposed work in
18
pairs or groups requiring negotiation and co-operation to do not only accuracy-
based tasks but also fluency-based ones. Besides, they are provided with
authentic activities and meaningful tasks, students feel free with real-life
communication. As a result, they are active in producing their own output and
learning new language through doing with mistakes. Teachers’ feedback, in
this case, appears to be more important than ever.
II.1.3.2. Stages of a speaking lesson

In Terry (2008)’s presentation about “How to teach speaking in an EFL
class”, it was proposed that a speaking lessons consists of three main stages.
Specifically, in the pre-communicative stage, teachers are supposed to

introduce the communicative function, highlight the fixed expression, point out
the target structure and provide students with the necessary vocabulary and the
language of interaction
In the practice stage, teachers prompt and correct students if necessary.

In the last stage of communicative interaction, teachers encourage language
negotiation among students, take notes of any aspects that may hinder
communication such as pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, etc.
After this stage, teachers give students feedback on pronunciation,

grammar and vocabulary and ask students to repeat the task if necessary.
II.2. Overview of teacher’s immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
II.2.1. Feedback in speaking lesson
II.2.1.1. Definition of feedback
So far, the term “feedback” has been used in many different fields such
as biology, economics, government, education, etc. On the webpage of
Wikipedia, feedback is defined as “a process of sharing observations, concerns
19
and suggestions with the other with an intention of improving his performance
as an individual”. This definition, actually, shed light on the nature of feedback
in any aforementioned fields. Recognizably, although feedback can be of the
extremely broad terms, within the scope of this study, the researcher tackles
feedback with a pedagogical view.
In the context of teaching and learning languages, there are a big number
of feedback definitions. Littlewood (1981) and Lewis (2002) both equaled
feedback with telling learners about their progress and showing them their
errors in order to guide them to areas for improvement. Different in words but
similar in nature, Ur (1996, p.242) proposed that “feedback is information that
is given to the learner about his or her performance of a learning task, usually
with the objective of improving this performance.” It is clearly seen that these
two definitions treated this terms under a broad point of view since they just
indicated that learners are the ones to receive feedback without showing who
are the ones to give it. However, in Ferris (1999), feedback was viewed as “any
response a teacher may give his or her students” (cited in Do, 2009, p.16).
Obviously, the point which all the aforementioned definitions have in

common is the purpose of providing feedback, i.e. for learner’s improvement.
Accordingly, there are two matters loomed. Firstly, question of quality
feedback comes into considerable concern. The second thing is the distinction
between feedback and criticism as Robert (2003) proposed in his study:
“Feedback should only ever be used as a basis for improvement. It should not
be mistaken for negative criticism and vice verse.” (p.12)
Supporting Robert (2003)’s idea, Bound (2000) pointed out significant

difference between feedback and criticism. Whereas, “A good feedback is
20
given without personal judgment or opinion, given based on the facts, always
neutral and objective, constructive and focus on the future”, “criticism is
personal, fault finding, very subjective, usually destructive, involve emotion,
and past oriented” (p.7). In another way, as opposed to feedback which is
aimed to give sincere input to someone in order for him/ her to improve him/
herself, criticism is given for the negative purpose and in improper way.
In the nutshell, feedback provision can be among peers or between

teachers and students; however, feedback concerned in this study is viewed in
the notion of teaching-learning act between teachers and students.
II.2.1.2. Roles of feedback in language classrooms
Hattie and Kimberley (2007) asserted in their review that “feedback is

one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement.” (p.3).
Friermuth (1998) supported that teachers’ feedback helps “improve learners’
accuracy and language acquisition” (p.7).To the researcher, the indispensable
role of teachers’ feedback can be shown in the fact that teachers’ feedback
reflects to students what and how they perform, showing them their strong
points to strengthen as well as the weak points to improve. Noticeably, when
teachers leave mistakes untreated, the defective language might serve as an
input model and acquired by other students in the class. In short, students,
when doing without teachers’ feedback, run a high risk of losing their ways.
Added to this, Moss (2002) proposed that teachers’ feedback can speed up the
process of language learning by providing information about rules and the
limits of language use, which would otherwise takes students a long time to
deduce on their own.
In brief, teachers’ feedback is considered “a prime requirement for

progress in learning”, as proposed in Tunstall and Gipps (1996, p.9); therefore,
21
“giving feedback is one of the key roles that teacher play in classroom.” (Al
Fahdi, 2005). Moreover, not every teacher is successful in doing this job;
therefore, the matter of what types and contents of feedback to deliver is
undoubtedly a matter of concern.
II.2.1.3. Types of feedback
So far, the researcher could find various ways of categorizing feedback

types. Firstly, from the viewpoint of Brookhart (1998), feedback falls into four
general types which are shown in this following chart:
Figure 1: Feedback Types classified by Brookhart (1998)
Another way of classifying feedback which is shown in the graph below

is found in Crane’s study (2006). In fact, the way he divided feedback types
had also been found in Flemming and Levie (2003).
Figure 2: Feedback Types classified by Crane (2006)
22
Glattulo (2000) and Harmer (2001) seemed to be briefer when dividing
feedback in to three categories only, i.e. corrective, evaluate and strategic
feedback. Basically, there are no distinctive differences among those types of
feedback. Apart from corrective and evaluate feedback shown clearly above,
strategic one, which aims to offer students advice on what to do to improve
their performance, is somehow like effective and descriptive feedback
clarified in Brookhart (1998).
It is commonly known that besides these feedback types, there are some
other related names shown as the followings.
Positive vs. Negative/ Corrective feedback
As for Mc.Namara (1999) and Anyon (2001), positive feedback shows

students that teachers are interested in what they say and at the same time
encourage them. In contrary, negative one expresses teachers’ displeasure,
frustration or involves some kinds of punishment. Corrective feedback, as it
name tells, is used to correct students’ mistake.
Direct/explicit vs. Indirect/ implicit feedback
In Bitchener et. al (2005), it was stated that direct or explicit feedback

means that teachers identifies an error and provides the correct form, while
indirect or implicit feedback refers to the situation when teachers point out an
errors without correct form provision.
Verbal vs. Non-verbal feedback
In Long (1996), verbal feedback which is presented in a form that is

spoken or capable of being spoken concerns not only phrases used but also
tone of voice. Accordingly, non-verbal feedback refers to the one made in
silence with cues like facial expressions.
23
Teachers’ vs. Peer feedback
As held in Wajnryb (1990), “feedback works in three directions: teachers

to students, students to students and students to teachers.” It can be referred
that besides teachers’ feedback which is delivered from teachers to students,
peer feedback also occurs among classmates.
Written vs. Oral feedback
Whereas teachers’ written feedback is delivered to students in the form

of notes, oral feedback is done in spoken words.
It should be noted that oral feedback is synonymous with verbal

feedback and it cannot be delivered in silence like the way non-verbal feedback
is. For example, question mark can be shown in both teacher’s face and voice.
S: I go yesterday.
T: (T turns face to the side a bit and frowns) go?
S: Oh. Yes. I went yesterday.
(Adapted from Nguyen et al., 2003)
Clearly enough, the formal one (“turn face to the side a bit and frowns)
is non-verbal feedback whereas the later (“go” with rising tone) is oral.
Simply put, feedback which can be called oral must be in utterances.
Immediate vs. Delayed feedback

Immediate feedback refers to teachers’ comments delivered on the spot
when a mistake or a good point is made by students. Roger (2006) proposed
that this feedback type is employed by teachers when the aim of the stage of
the lesson is to promote accuracy, particularly during the drilling of the target
language and during guided practice. In a smaller scale of the three stages of a
speaking lesson, Moss (2002), cited in Nguyen (2009) showed the same idea
24
that this feedback type is recommended at the accuracy stage. As for the
advantages of the on-the-spot feedback, in the researcher’ viewpoint, it
enables teachers to give support or encouragement when students are confused
about their making mistakes or in need of being motivated. Richards (1998)
who was concerned about spontaneous correction asserted that it can help
learners aware of the mistake straight away. Nevertheless, he put emphasis on
the fact that “sometimes this feedback type discourages learners from
speaking as they may feel that every word in their speech is being judged.”
(Richard, 1998, p.23). Similarly, immediate feedback is not recommended in
the fluency stage of a speaking lesson. In this case, delayed feedback should
take place. Seeing that spontaneous feedback can backfire sometimes, it is
suggested that techniques of delivering should be employed. Penny Ur (2006)
(cited in Nguyen, 2009) recommended that spontaneous feedback should be
“unobtrusive” to avoid the interruption students’ “flow”. Another point which
may distinguish on-the-spot from delayed feedback is that whereas the former
one tends to be used for individuals’ performance, the latter is for group work.
(Roger, 2006)
II.2.2. Teacher’s immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
As said above, feedback works in three directions which are interlinked

and interactive, can take oral or written form, can be delivered immediately or
with delays. However, due to the limitation of the study, the researcher puts
focus on immediate oral feedback delivered by teachers to students only.
II.2.2.1. Content of teachers’ oral feedback in speaking lessons
II.2.2.1.1. Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
In fact, there have been no studies which clearly discussed the contents
of corrective feedback. In the researcher’s view point, immediate corrective
25
feedback should have its content focused on both mistakes on form and
mistakes on meaning.
In term of mistakes on form, Beare (2003) proposed that there are a

number of types of mistakes that students tend to make frequently, namely
grammatical mistakes, vocabulary and pronunciation mistakes. Accordingly,
the contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback should put focus on these
things. Specifically, with grammatical mistakes, teachers are supposed to pay
attention to mistakes of verb tenses, preposition uses, etc. With vocabulary
mistakes, teachers feedback should cover students’ incorrect collocations,
idiomatic phrase usage, etc. whereas students’ errors in basic pronunciation,
word stressing in sentences, rhythm and pitch, etc. should be put focus on
teachers’ feedback on pronunciation.
As for mistakes on meaning, Edge, in his “Mistakes and Correction”

(1998) investigated two situations that this mistake type occurs. Firstly, it
occurs when a speaker uses a correct linguistic form that does not mean what
he wants to mean. Secondly, it is when the speaker uses a correct but socially
unacceptable linguistic form– the problem here concerns the politeness.
In the researcher’s point of view, mistakes on meaning concerns

students’ ideas, idea organizations and logic of ideas. As for students’ mistakes
on ideas, teachers’ correction emphasizes on students’ ideas which cannot be
understood by the other despite their correct linguistic form. With mistakes on
idea organizations, teachers pay attention to the way students organize their
strings of ideas to make sure that such idea organizations make it easy for the
hearer to follow or catch the main points. Lastly, teachers’ correction focuses
on the logic of students’ ideas if their strings of ideas are not coherent enough.
II.2.2.1.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
26
According to “Attribution Theory” by Weiner (1980 & 1992) cited in
Bempechat (2002), there are four factors that influence motivation in
education: ability, task difficulty, effort and luck.
An important assumption of attribution theory is that people will

interpret their environment in such a way as to maintain a positive self-image.
That is, they will attribute their successes or failures to factors that will enable
them to feel as good as possible about themselves. In general, this means that
when learners succeed at an academic task, they are likely to want to attribute
this success to their own efforts or abilities; but when they fail, they will want
to attribute their failure to factors over which they have no control, such as bad
teaching or bad luck. The implication is that when someone do something well,
they want to be complimented on their ability or effort.
Falling into the same lines with the Attribution Theory, Burnett (2002)
suggested that teachers’ oral feedback should focus on students’ ability or
effort in order to provide motivation to students in speaking lessons.
Teachers’ effort feedback can be delivered in forms of utterance like

“You’ve been working hard”; “You’re trying really hard’ or “ You did try your
best.”, etc. (Brunett, 2002, p.3) Clearly, this type of feedback counts the effort
that students make to do tasks only and good results can be involved or not.
On the other hand, teachers’ ability feedback put emphasis on students’

ability to do tasks well. For instant, ‘Well done, you’re really smart’; ‘Gee,
you’re a good student’ (Brunett, 2002, p.3). Since this type of feedback
seemingly concerns students’ innate ability, it may result in the fact that the
ones who are praised may feel that they can do everything well effortlessly and
27
the others who are not may feel that they cannot perform as well as their
friends because they are not so innately smart.
According to Mueller & Dweck (1998), ability teacher feedback was

associated with students’ interest in performance tasks while effort teacher
feedback was related to interest in learning tasks.
II.2.2.2. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
As far as the researcher is concerned, the way of providing feedback

orally and spontaneously can mostly be found in some studies about mistakes
correction and positive feedback.
II.2.2.2.1. Types of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
Firstly, in terms of immediate oral feedback which aims at mistake

correction, Lyster & Ranta (1997) and Diane (1998) shared the same opinion
that oral feedback can be divided into six types, namely recasts, elicitation,
clarification requests, metalinguistic cues, explicit correction, and repetition.
Later on, in another study by Lyster in 1998, he categorized elicitation,
metalinguistic cues, clarification requests and repetitions into one group named
negotiation on form which provides cues to facilitate students or peer repair.
The matter of oral feedback classification was once again mentioned in another
study by Lyster and Mori in 2006 and the term “negation on form” was then
replaced by “prompts” (p.272).
In general, these ways of classification are of no significant

difference; therefore, it would be better to review oral feedback in notion of
encompassing six sub-types to have a detailed insight into it.
28
Recast:
As Long (1996) proposed, recast is an implicit corrective feedback

move that reformulates or expands an ill-formed or incomplete utterance in an
unobtrusive way. An example of recast comes as follow:
S: Dangerous? ( phonological error: /dange’rus/)
T: Yeah, good. Dangerous. (recast) You remember? Safe and

dangerous. If you walk in the street, you....
(Adapted from Lyster and Panova, 1998)
Explicit correction:
Explicit correction, as for Lightbown, Patsy M. & Spada, Nina (1999),

refers to teachers’ explicit provision of the correct form after clearly indicating
that what students said was incorrect. For example,
S: The day.......tomorow. (lexical error)
T: Yes. No, the day before yesterday. (explicit correction)
Explicit correction is also characterized by 'Oh, you mean …', 'You

should say …”, “Use this word…” given by teachers.
Prompts, which formerly refer to the negotiation on form (Lyster,

(1998a, 1999b), were defined as instances where students were prompted to
use more accurate grammatical forms. Prompts included elicitations,
clarification requests, metalinguitics cues and repetitions.
Elicitation:
According to Diane (1998), elicitation means that teachers directly elicit

the correct form from students and prompt them to self-correct. Lyster and
Ranta (1997) identified three ways of eliciting the correct form from students.
29
 Pausing and letting students complete the utterance. For instant,
S: "...Well, there's a stream of perfume that doesn't smell very nice..."
T: “"So a stream of perfume, we'll call that a...?" (elicitation)

(Adapted from Diane, 1998)
 Asking an open question. For example,

T: In a fast food restaurant, how much do you tip?
S: No money. (lexical error)
T: What’s the word? (elicitation)
(Adapted from Lyster & Panova, 1997)
Another question also used frequently is “How do we say that in

English?” For Danie (1998), elicitation questions differ from questions in
metalinguistic cues in that they require more than a yes/no response.
 Requesting reformulation of the ill- formed utterance from students.

S: Yes, yes, I like it.
T: Well, say that again.(elicitation)
(Slimani, 1992)
Clarification request
The purpose of clarification request is to elicit reformulation or
repetition from students with respect to the form of students’ ill-formed
utterances. (Leyster and Pan ova, 1998). Here is an example of clarification
request:
S: As a child, I live in that house. (grammatical error)
T: Now? (clarification request)
SmS: Yeah . . . I lived. (repair)
30
Further, this type of feedback also seeks the clarification of meaning:
S: I want practice today, (grammatical error)
T: I’m sorry? (clarification request)
In fact, “I’m sorry?”, “Pardon me?”, “I don’t understand”, or

repetition of the error as in “What do you mean by....?”, etc. are seen as typical
feature for this type of feedback.
Metalingustic cues:
According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), metalinguistic cues refer to

“either comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of
the students utterance, without explicitly providing the correct form.” (p.46).
An example of metalingusitic cues comes as follow:
S: "Uhm, the, the elephant. The elephant growls."
T: "Do we say “the elephant” ?"
(Adapted from Danie, 1998)
Apart from the metalingutic cue used in the above example, teachers
may ask “Do we say it like that?”, “That’s not how you say it in English”, etc.
Repetition
As asserted in Lyster and Panova (1998), in this type of oral feedback,

teacher repeats the ill-formed part of students’ utterance, usually with a change
in intonation to draw student’s attention to it, as illustrated in this example:
S:"The...the giraffe?"
31
T: "The giraffe?"
(Adapted from Dannie, 1998)
II.2.2.2.2. Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
Although positive feedback has been the topic of many researchers, no

track of its classification has been found by the researcher. In the researcher
point of view, basing on the length of teachers’ utterances, teachers’ positive
feedback can be divided into two main types, namely simple form and complex
form.
Specifically, simple forms of teachers’ positive feedback can be a sound,

a word or a phrase. Here are some examples:
 Words: Good! , Excellent! Perfect!, etc.
 Phrases: Very good! Well-done!, Good one!, etc.
Complex forms, in this light, can be a simple sentence or a complex

sentence. For instance,
 A simple sentence:
- You’re very smart/ intelligent. You are a good student.
- You did try your best/ you put a lot of effort into it.
 A complex sentence:
- "You're a smart student. I know you can do it."
- "Nice job! It's what I expected of you."
- “So impressive! I don’t think I can do better than you.”
32
II.2.2.3. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lessons
II.2.2.3.1. Teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons
So far, there have been a number of studies on the ways language

teachers perceive teachers’ oral feedback provision and most of them showed
the positive attitudes towards this work. Specifically, Rydahl (2006) found that
“the majority of the teachers find oral feedback as an important tool to help
students achieve a higher proficiency in a second and foreign language.” (p.11)
Strangely enough, in no researches could the researcher find teachers’
disapproval or dislike to teachers’ oral feedback
As for feedback timing, the researcher realized that there has been mixed
attitudes towards whether teachers’ oral feedback should be immediate or
delayed in speaking lessons. In Lewis & Anderson (1985), the majority of
teacher respondents thought that “the more immediate feedback, the more
useful it is in terms of learning.” (p.34). Besides, other teachers who are very
neutral stated that immediate oral feedback can be useful when teachers are
interacting with the class but when students are involved in pairs or groups
activities, immediate feedback is not advisable and delayed correction is better,
instead.
Concerning the frequency of corrective to positive feedback used by

teachers, Strain et al., (1983) proposed a contrasting viewpoint from Merret &
Wheldall (1987). Specifically, while the former stated that teachers provide
more negative feedback compared to positive one, the later put that 56% of
feedback given to the student-participants was positive. Sharing the same
33
results with Strain et al., (1983), Dunkin & Biddle (1974, cited in Burnett,
2002, p.5) pointed out that teachers’ positive feedback occurred on average
only 6% of the total time for feedback. In brief, there were different ideas
about this.
With regards to teachers’ preferred types of oral feedback in mistake

correction work, Panova and Lyster (2006) revealed the results that among
seven types of oral corrective feedback, teachers preferred using recast which
occurred in more than half of the feedback turns, followed by translation,
leaving only few opportunities for other types. Unfortunately, in opinion of
many researchers, recasts were considered as “the least effective means of
error correction” while eliciting which was hardly used turned out to be the
most effective method (Russell, 2009). The doubt that whether it is the reason
for the lack of effectiveness in teachers’ oral correction work has still unsolved
in the studies so far.
In terms of frequency of teachers’ use the two sub-types of positive

feedback (effort and ability feedback), the researcher could find no studies
related. In common sense, the researcher found that ability feedback seemed to
be used to comment on good work of primary or secondary students whereas
effort feedback tended to be used for more grown-up students.
II.2.2.3.2. Students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral

feedback in speaking lessons
. In correspondence with teachers’ preferable attitudes, most of the

student participants in recent researches also showed their preference to
teachers’ oral feedback. For instance, the students in Terese’s (2005) study
pointed out that “teachers have to always remember to give corrective feedback
34
as well as positive feedback.” (p.3). Further, they expressed the satisfaction
when receiving positive feedback and their expectation that even when it is not
a positive one, it should be delivered in positive ways. Both Salle (2004) and
Chan (2008) shared the same conclusion that the students surveyed
unanimously showed the desire to be given oral feedback, preferably by the
teacher, not by peers. Interestingly, student preferences for teacher feedback
stemmed from their awareness that teachers control grades.
Noticeably, the negative view on teachers’ oral feedback provision can

hardly be found. Only Schulz’s (2001) case study on U.S and Colombo’s
language classes revealed that 6% of U.S and 5% of Colombo’s students
disliked receiving teachers’ oral feedback on their oral work. Similarly,
Burnett’s study (2001) investigating students’ attitudes towards teachers’
positive feedback, showed that 91% of his student participants preferred to be
praised often or sometimes, while on average, only 9% reported that they never
wanted praise. Although the number of student-advocates of teachers’ oral
feedback in oral work vastly outweighs that of students who disliked, students’
mixed attitudes should still be recognized.
In terms of students’ preferences for immediate or delayed oral feedback

in speaking lessons, Beare (2003) concluded that the way students perceived
showed some contradiction when 54% students were in favor of teachers’
immediate feedback because it is delivered just in time, eliciting students to
self-correct and making it easy for them to remember. On the contrary, the rest
said that they dislike teachers’ immediate feedback sometimes because it
interrupts their speaking, making them loose their ways.
35
With regards to the contents of teachers’ feedback, Salle (2004)
concluded that students showed a high preference for feedback which focused
on form, not on content which tended to be general and sometimes,
contradictory to students’ ideas. In Burnett’s study (2001), it was found that
most students (84%) preferred to be praised for trying hard or putting in effort,
rather than for having good ability (16%). It is noticeable that, in corrective
feedback, although recasts were used most frequently by teachers, they may
not be noticed by students because they do not require participation by
students, which was illustrated by 70% of recasts going unnoticed in Lyster
and Ranta (1997). Another finding in Long (2006) showed that some students
had difficulties in distinguishing recasts from repetitions.
II.2.2.3.3. Mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of

immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
Overall, teachers and students have a marked preference for teachers’

oral feedback; nevertheless, some differences in their perceptions still exist.
So far, there is a mismatch in students’ and teachers’ belief systems

about oral corrective feedback. According to Lasgabaster & Seria (2005),
students are generally in favor of more corrections whereas teachers generally
in favor of less oral error correction in order not to impede students’
communication in language learning. Schulz’s (2001) study showed that 94%
of U.S. and 95% of Colombian students expressed a preference for their
teachers to correct their oral errors during class. As for teachers, only 48% of
teachers agreed that oral errors should be corrected in class. Recognizably,
these figures reveal a mismatch between students’ and teachers’ expectations
regarding error correction.
36
Mismatch can also be found between students and teachers’ perceptions
of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback. Specifically, the student-
participants in Schulz (2001) stated that constant correction and immediate is
sometimes not helpful because they feel that it inhibits language production.
Teacher-participants, on the other hand, were more concerned about not over-
correcting their pupils for fear of inducing language anxiety. The teachers
expressed that it is neither practical nor beneficial to correct each and every
error that students commit.
In one word, although most of the teachers and students shared the same
positive view on teachers’ oral feedback in speaking lessons, there is mismatch
in their ideas about frequency of oral feedback provision, immediate or delayed
feedback, etc. In the researcher’s opinion, the aforementioned mismatches may
be hindrances for effectiveness of teachers’ feedback provision. Therefore,
bridging the gap in teachers and students’ perceptions is the matter of
overriding concern.
37
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, all the detailed information about Methodology
concerning employing the three data collection instruments is discussed.
As mentioned, this paper was specially designed to answer the four

following questions:
(1) What are teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons?
(2) What are 11th - form students’ perceptions of teacher’s immediate

oral feedback in speaking lessons?
(3) What are the contents of immediate oral feedback employed by

teachers in speaking lessons for 11th-form students?
(4) What are the types of immediate oral feedback delivered by

teachers in speaking lessons for 11th-form students?
III.1. Participants and participant selection method
This paper was carried out among 11th-form students and teachers of
English in Nguyen Binh Khiem High School, Hanoi. Ten of the teachers of
English in this school and four clusters of 11th-form students, namely 11CA
(specialized group of English), 11A7, 11A8 (non-specialized groups) and
11CH (specialized group of Chemistry), which consists of 155 students in total,
were selected to complete the survey questionnaires. The researcher selected
these clusters of students with a hope of obtaining comprehensive data and
accurate reflection of the practice of teachers’ oral feedback in speaking
lessons. In addition, the number of student-participants which made up 22% of
all the 11th-form students in this school could be considered reasonable enough.
38
The distribution of survey questionnaire to these students can be shown in
details in this table below.
Group Number of students
11CA (gifted group of English ) 36
11A7 35
11A8 43
11CH (gifted group of Chemistry) 36
Table 1: Classes distributed with survey questionnaires
All of the respondents for the questionnaire were required to supply their
name, address or phone number so that the researcher could contact when
necessary.
After carrying out the survey questionnaire, three teachers and six
students from four groups (one or two students from each group), all of whom
had critical or interesting answers, were invited to take part in the semi-
structured interview. Accordingly, the researcher could have more in-depth
understanding about the research’ issue.
Lastly, group 11A7 was chosen at random for carrying out the classroom
observation for direct reflection of the practice of teachers’ oral feedback in
speaking lessons.
III.2. Data collection instruments
Based on the essence of the research questions, the researcher employed

both quantitative and qualitative method including survey questionnaires, semi-
structured interview and classroom observation to examine the results.
39
Survey questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was utilized for a number of reasons. Firstly,

this instrument is said to “provide data economically and in a form that lends
itself perfectly to the purposes of the study” (Vanjendra & Mallick, 1991,
p.13). Indeed, this instrument is proved to be the least time and effort
consuming method thanks to its versality, straightforward data processing and
the typical types of close-ended questions which “make it easier and quicker to
fill in and also make for quicker and more reliable scoring of the responses”
(Wallace, 1999, p.9). As a result, a large number of data can be collected in the
relatively short time. However, this instrument still has some minor
disadvantages. Specifically, when employing it, there might be little to no
opportunity for the researcher to correct the respondents’ mistakes, resulting in
a large number of valueless data. As a solution to this, the researcher tried the
best to avoid using ambiguous and difficult words to make sure that the
respondents could understand thoroughly what they had to do. Added to this,
the researcher was well-prepared to give explanation or answer all the
questions raised by the respondents.
The survey questionnaire used in this research consisted of both close-

ended and open-ended questions. Among of those questions, close-ended ones
outweighed open-ended ones in number. Whereas the questionnaire for
teachers was written in English, that for students was in Vietnamese to avoid
students’ confusion or misunderstanding and thus the inaccuracy of the
outcomes. All the details about the structure of the two survey questionnaires
are demonstrated in the table below.
40
Range of questions
Section Teachers’ Students’

questionnaire questionnaire
(Appendix 1A) (Appendix 1B)
1. Teachers/ Students’ perceptions of

Q.1 - Q.4 Q.1 - Q.5
teachers’ immediate oral feedback
2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral

Q.5 – Q.7 Q.6 - Q.8
feedback
3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral

Q.8 & Q.9 Q.9 & Q.10
feedback
Table 2: Structure of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires
In order to obtain the data for the research questions, the researcher made use
of three types of questions, i.e. factual and behavioral questions in
investigating the practice of teachers’ oral feedback in speaking lessons and
attitudinal questions to discover teachers and students’ perceptions of the
matter concerned. All the questions in the questionnaire were estimated to be
completed in ten minutes.
Semi-structured interview
Undoubtedly, this instrument was proved to help minimize the

disadvantages of the questionnaire. According to Markey and Gass (2005,
p.173), the interview can “elicit additional data if initial answers are vague,
incomplete, off-topic or not specific enough.” Accordingly, the researcher
could get more complete picture of the research’s issue. Nevertheless, this
instrument could perform its best only when the researcher tried to alleviate its
short-comings by creating an informal and friendly atmosphere between the
interviewer and interviewees. As a result, the interviews could be conducted in
41
openly way and promised about efficiency. For later reference, the researcher
audio-taped all the interviews under the permission of the respondents.
As said above, the interview was of semi-structured type which had a

framework prepared beforehand by the researcher but still allowed new related
questions or follow-up questions to be brought up during the interview. Hence,
the researcher could catch more in-depth information from the respondents. In
terms of the structures, the interview included both close-ended and open-
ended question; still, open-ended questions were bigger in number. Further
details are shown in the following table.
Range of questions
Section Teachers’ interview Students’ interview

(Appendix 2A) (Appendix 2B)
1. Teachers/ Students’ perceptions of

Q.1 - Q.4 Q.1 & Q.2
teachers’ immediate oral feedback
2. Contents of teachers’ immediate

Q.5 – Q.8 Q.3 & Q.4
oral feedback
3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral

Q.9 – Q.11 Q.5 - Q.7
feedback
Table 3: Structure of teachers’ and students’ interview
Classroom observation
Lastly, classroom observation was carried out to triangulate the

information collected from the questionnaires and the interview. However, it
was anticipated to be difficult to catch all the moves, many of which occurred
simultaneously in speaking lessons, leading in the miss of valuable data. Thus,
42
to avoid this problem, video-tape was utilized to capture all the moves in the
classroom so that any of data would not be neglected.
In this observation, the researcher paid special attention to different

types of immediate corrective and positive feedback used by teachers and their
contents, as well. As for detailed information about the key points of the
classroom observation, please see the observation checklist in Appendix 5.
III.3. Data collection procedure
Phase 1: Piloting the questionnaires
In this stage, the researcher had the survey questionnaires piloted with
two teachers and five students. The purposes of this stage were to collect
constructive feedback on how the instrument worked or whether it performed
as intended. Indeed, piloting helped identify ambiguous, repetitive and
redundant items in the questionnaire, enhancing the degree that the questions
could yield the data required. After being piloted, revision on this instrument
was indispensable to ensure its accuracy and conciseness. Accordingly, some
necessary changes were made and repiloting was carried out until the
instrument was proved to work effectively.
Phase 2: Delivering the survey questionnaires
155 copies of questionnaires for students in 11CA, 11A7, 11A8 and

11CH and 10 for teachers were delivered at break time in person to make sure
that all the participants received the questionnaires. The questionnaires for
students were written in Vietnamese to avoid their misunderstanding or
confusion. In addition to being accurate in wording instructions, the researcher
must be well-prepared for questions raised by participants during the process.
Time for the questionnaires completion was 10-15 minutes. Besides, all the
43
respondents were required to write down their name and address or phone
number for the sake of later reference.
Phase 3: Piloting the semi-structured interview
Basing on the contents that the respondents replied in the questionnaires,

the researcher found out which issue-related points needed exploiting
furthermore. Afterwards, the researcher made decision about the fixed
questions as basement for the semi-structured interview. Then, piloting was
carried out among one teacher and two students in this school to make sure that
the instrument worked
Phase 4: Conducting the semi-structured interview
Three teachers and six students whose responses to the survey

questionnaires were critical or impressive were invited to the interviews
conducted in classroom for natural setting. Estimated time for each interview is
15 minutes which can be flexibly changed depending on specific situations.
The interview was carried out basing on the content of these respondents’
answers to the questionnaires. The interviewees will be asked to give more
opinions or further explanation on their choices. They were expected to feel
free with open-ended questions. Note-taking and tape-recording were utilized
to avoid missing important data which might be useful later. Reasons for note-
taking and tape-recording as well as guarantee about strict confidence should
be given to interviewees to make them feel free.
Phase 5: Carrying out classroom observation work
In this phrase, once having drawn out a checklist for the classroom
observation, the researcher also piloted this checklist to check whether it
worked effectively enough. Afterwards, some necessary changes in classroom
observation checklist were made basing on the drawbacks of its design. To
44
minimize the mistakes that the observer might encounter during the
observation, video-tape was used for later reference.
Phase 6: Synthesizing data from the three instruments
After carrying out the three instruments, all the data were collected.
Initially, the researcher checked whether there were any technical problems
with recordings and tapes. After that, the researcher had to value the obtained
data to sort out the valueless ones. Moreover, the data that were noted down
and recorded from the semi-structured interview seemed to be overloaded;
thus, the researcher checked them again carefully to get what was really useful
for the study’s aims.
III.4. Data analysis method
Through employing triangular data collection method, the researcher

statistically synthesized the results and interpreted the data. Besides,
descriptive statistics was also implemented. Specifically, the data was
calculated and transferred into numerical form. For instant, by calculating, the
researcher could work out the total number or average percentage of the
respondents sharing the same ideas as well as those of different ones. Of
course, this calculating work was assisted by computer software which
guaranteed the perfect accuracy. After the participants’ ratings were summed
and averaged, composite score was obtained, the answers to the four research
questions could be shed light on.
In addition, qualitative data like participants’ answers to the open-ended

questions in the questionnaires, open questions in the semi-structured interview
and data obtained from observation work were either summarized or directly
quoted in the analysis procedure.
45
III.5. Data analysis procedure
Firstly, quantitative results will be analyzed in percentage and grouped

into different categories. Specifically, this type of data was categorized into
four groups, namely students’/ teachers’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback in speaking lesson, contents and types of this feedback delivered
in speaking lessons. In addition, all the collected figures were presented in
charts, tables and graphs for better visualization. Secondly, qualitative data
were to be presented in the form of summary or direct quotations when the
researcher wants to illustrate the analysis of data for the four research
questions. Both kinds of the data will be collectively analyzed to identify
patterns as well as details.
46
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Following the six phases in the data collection procedure mentioned in
the previous chapter, data essential to the completion of this research have
been obtained. The results of analysis process come as follows:
IV. 1. Results
IV.1.1. Teachers and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate

IV.1.1.1. Teachers and students’ perceptions of the importance of

teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
70 60
60
50 35 .3 40
Teacher
40 29
%
30 16 .7 19
Student
20
0 0 0 0
10
0
Unim po rta nt Q uit e N e utral Im po rt ant E xtrem e ly I
Im po rt a nt Im po rta nt
Figure 3: Importance of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking

lessons (Question 1, Appendix 1A & Appendix 1B)
Recognizably, this chart shows the positive attitudes of teachers and

students towards the importance of immediate feedback. The vast majority of
teachers consider immediate feedback as important to extremely important,
60% and 40% corresponsively. Similarly, the number of those students who
think highly of teachers’ immediate feedback (35.3% for importance and 29 %
47
for extreme importance) outweighs those who are neutral (19%) and devalue it
(16.7%). Positively enough, no one said it is not important at all.
Whereas those teachers are unanimous about the importance of

immediate feedback, the students show mixed attitudes. However, overall, the
number of students who are not in favor of this feedback type does not count
much. This optimistic result, to some extents, indicates that most of the
teachers and students have been fully aware of the role of teachers’ immediate
feedback in speaking lessons. That attitude may help improve the quality of the
speaking lessons in which teachers are enthusiastic to help students make
progress and students, in their turn, show their big welcome to teachers’
correction as well as praises.
IV.1.1.2. Teachers and students’ perceptions of the advantages of

teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
As discussed, that those teachers tend to use immediate oral feedback

frequently is not a coincidence. Indeed, the reasons for it are unveiled in
question number (2) shown in the chart following:
120
100 90 85
80 70
65.4
% 60
40 40
Teacher
40 31 30
20.6 Student
20 8
0
A B C D E
Figure 4: Advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking

48
A. Teachers give oral feedback just in time students need teachers’ help
or encouragement.
B. Students can correct mistakes while a problem is still fresh in their

mind; therefore, it’s easy to remember.
C. It helps to improve the interaction between teachers and students

during lessons.
D. It makes students feel that they are listened to by teachers while

speaking.
E. Others
Concerning how teachers and students perceive the advantages of

teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons, it is noticeable that
90% of the teachers agree that giving students feedback without delay means
offering helps or encouragement to them just in time they expect. One of those
teachers said that since their students were quite nervous about making
mistakes and lacked confidence when speaking, it was really necessary to help
them immediately (T1, Appendix 3A). Similarly, among 65.4% of the student
advocating for this choice, some of them shared that teachers’ immediate
feedback both made them feel more confident and want to make effort for the
rest part of their performance. Besides, the advantage of immediate feedback
as making it easy for student to correct mistakes and remember is also chosen
by a large percentage of teachers and students, 70% and 85% respectively.
Among 30% teachers expressing other ideas about the advantages of

immediate feedback, most of them say that if feedback which was not
delivered immediately might escape teachers’ mind later. Clarifying this idea,
one teacher, when being asked, said that normally teachers had to manage
49
many things in a lesson; thus, sometimes their full attention could not be paid
to only one individual speaking (T2, Appendix 3B). As for the respondents’
other opinions, some students supposed that since this feedback type usually
takes form of short utterances, it is not time consuming and teachers can
provide more contents in their feedback to students.
Briefly, despite some differences, these figures still show the same
positive perceptions of the role of this feedback type among the respondents.
IV.1.1.3. Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons
The answers to the question of the frequency of teachers’ using on-the-

spot feedback are illustrated in the chart below:
70
60
50 46.3
50 40
37.2 Teacher
40
% Student
30
16.5
20
10
10
0 0 0 0
0
Never Rarely Som etim es Often Alw ays
Figure 5: Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback in speaking

As seen in the chart, teachers’ using immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons is acknowledged with a great frequency. Specifically, 50%
teachers and 46.3 % students agree that the teachers often use immediate oral
feedback in speaking lessons, making the highest proportion in compared with
50
the advocacy for other choices. Following, the idea that teachers always use
this feedback is chosen by 40% of the teachers and 16.5 % of the students.
Noticeably, the rest are all the advocates for the third choice (“teachers
sometimes use this feedback”), leaving option (1) and (2) chosen by no one.
The results collected from the questionnaires, to some extents, quite match
with what was shown in the observation. In fact, teachers’ immediate oral
feedback made up to more than six seventh of the teachers’ feedback turns,
leaving only a few times for delayed feedback (Appendix 6).
Recognizably, there is no distinct difference between those teachers’ and

students’ answers to this question, helping validate the results. Moreover, these
figures indicate teachers’ preference of employing immediate feedback to
delayed feedback in speaking lessons.
IV.1.1.4. Students’ desires for teachers’ immediate oral feedback in

speaking lessons
Although the students show the positive perceptions of the role and
advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback, there seems to be mixed
opinions about how much they welcome it. This is shown in this pie chart.
14% 7% 7%
Not want at all

quite want
24%
neutral
want
really want
48%
Figure 6: Students’ desire for teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking

lessons. (Question 4, Appendix 1B)
51
Overall, the number of students who stand in a big favor of being given
feedback from their teachers occupies a very high percentage (72%). One of
those students said that: “If my teacher delays correcting my mistakes, I will
probably have repeated them many times before realizing and knowing how to
correct them. As a consequence, what imprints on my mind more is my
mistakes, not the right ones.” (S1, Appendix 4A). In addition, it came as a
surprise to the researcher that during the classroom observation when there
were two students did actively ask their teachers for immediate feedback when
they are unsure about their utterances but their teachers seemed not to be going
to give any feedback on the spot. This fact, to some extents, indicates the
extremely favorable responses in some groups of students to the matter of
immediate feedback.
In contrast with the majority of advocates, only 14% of the students are
neutral and another 14% object teachers’ immediate oral feedback. This figure
discloses some contradiction in the way students perceive this issue since in
question (1), i.e. no one thinks that teachers’ immediate feedback is not
important at all. When being asked to clarify, one student in this group, who
defined himself as not good at English shared that “My teacher tend to loose
patience, even got angry with me sometimes because I seemed to make no
improvement. Then I became scared of speaking and whenever I speak, I make
mistakes and any of my teachers’ immediate feedback at that time has a
counter-effect. I can’t continue speaking at all.” (S3, Appendix 4C).
52
IV.1.1.5. Teachers’ and students’ opinion about giving immediate
feedback on students’ good and bad performance
The two pie charts above respectively represents the teachers’ intention
of giving feedback on their students’ good and bad performance and the
students’ wish for their teachers’ immediate feedback in the two situations.
10% 40% 39% 19%
50% 42%
When students perform w ell When performing w ell
When students perform badly When performing badly
Both Both
Figure 7: When teachers want to give Figure 8: When students want

immediate feedback to receive immediate feedback
(Question 4, Appendix 1A) (Question 5, Appendix 1B)
Remarkably, the majority of both the teachers and the students express
their attention to bad performance, 50% and 42%, corresponsively. Whereas
the number of teachers who want to deliver their immediate feedback on
students’ good performance is still up to 40%, nearly twice less of the students
advocates for that. However, the rest of students, making up 39%, reveal that
both teachers’ immediate correction and praises are welcomed at any
circumstances. Undoubtedly, such high percentages of the respondents paying
attention to students’ mistakes reflects their great concern about students’
making mistakes and their awareness of the importance of teachers’ immediate
correction in speaking lessons. These figures can be considered as a positive
sign in the teaching and learning English in Vietnamese context. Indeed, in the
Communicative approach, “mistakes are seen as positive step towards learning
53
(...), no mistakes in a lesson means no real learning has taken place” and
“correction is an integral part of the lesson” (Nguyen et al., 2003, p.19).
As for the results that the number of teachers who want to give students
immediate feedback on their good performance outweigh as four times as that
of students who want to be commented immediately, there are some reasons
for it. When being interviewed, one teacher said that: “Motivation is
indispensable in a speaking lesson. Especially, when my students do well in the
lesson, I give them praises immediately and I can see how my feedback
works.” (T1, Appendix 3A). Another teacher, highly experienced, said that the
most basic objective of a speaking lesson is to prompt students to produce
language; therefore, whenever students utter a sentence, whether their
sentences right or wrong, they are firstly deserved to teachers’ praises (T2,
Appendix 3B). Those teachers’ opinion can be demonstrated in the real-life
situation. Through the classroom observation, the researcher agreed that those
teachers gave their students immediate positive feedback frequently. It seems
that only by common encouraging words like “good”, “very good” could
students be highly motivated. On the contrary, quite a few students said that
they want their good performance to be complimented on, which indicates the
two possibilities. One is that they are quite strict about what they deserve when
doing well. Another possibility is that within restriction of total time for
teachers’ feedback, they think that corrective feedback should go first.
Actually, the researcher’s prediction is proved to be correct when the

rest 10% of the teachers and 39% of the students who are in favor of teachers’
immediate feedback in both situations said that they would put priority on
corrective feedback, not positive one when the limit of time is concerned.
54
In short, both corrective and positive are in favor of the majority of the
participants. However, within the time restriction, the target participants show
their preference for feedback when students do something wrong.
IV.1.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
In addition to teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate

feedback, another issue concerned in this research is the contents of teachers’
immediate oral feedback including the contents of teachers’ immediate
corrective and positive feedback.
V.1.2.1. Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
The following chart demonstrates the teachers’ preferences for

correcting mistakes on form or on meaning as perceived by both the teacher
and student participants.
28.2
Mistakes on meaning
40
71.8
Mistakes on form
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Teacher Student
%
Figure 9: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback

(Question 5, Appendix 1A & Question 5, Appendix 1B)
As shown, 60% teachers and 71.8% students agree that teachers’

immediate correction is mostly addressed to mistakes on form including
55
grammatical mistakes, mistakes on vocabulary and pronunciation. However,
the rest teachers and students, accounting for 40% and 28.2% respectively,
think that more of teachers’ attention is directed to mistakes on meaning
including mistakes on ideas themselves, mistakes on idea organizations and
mistakes on logic of ideas. The results are fairly consistent with what was
found in the researcher’s observation scheme. As told, during the speaking
lesson, among the total of 32 teachers’ corrective feedback turns, 27 of them
was for correcting mistakes on form, making up nearly 67% of the total times.
(Appendix 6)
When being asked about the reasons why mistakes on form grab more
teachers’ attention, one teacher said that: “Paying attention to students’
mistakes on grammar and vocabulary benefits students not only in speaking but
also in other skills. Especially, grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation are
among the focuses of any students’ exams.” (T2, Appendix 3B). However,
another teacher who advocates for mistakes on meaning asserted that: “There is
always a context when people communicate. Thus, even when one
mispronounces or make grammatical mistakes, one may be still understood;
but it’s one’s mistakes in meaning that prevent one’s message from being
conveyed.” (T1, Appendix 3A). Recognizably, while the former teacher
combines the objectives of a speaking lesson with the exam focuses, the later
concerns the sake of speaking skill itself.
In short, there are conflicting ideas about which types of mistakes should
be paid more attention to. However, in practice, mistakes on forms are proved
to be of greater concerns. Besides some of the teachers’ perceptions about the
high importance of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, it is the exam-
56
orientation in Vietnamese education which have influences over their focuses
in correction work.
As for teachers’ frequency of focusing on specific contents of the two

aforementioned types of mistakes, the target teachers and students’ responses
to the survey questionnaires are reflected in the table below.
Frequency of teachers’ use (%)

Mistakes on... Very often Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
T S T S T S T S T S
Grammar 60 52.7 30 32.8 10 14.5
Form
Vocabulary 40 36.6 60 42.3 21.1

Pronunciation 50 30 41.3 20 26.4 32.3
Ideas 20 10 60 67.7 20 22.3
Meaning
Idea 30 4.6 60 31.8 10 58.2 5.4

Organizations
Logic of ideas 70 17 30 67 16
Table 4: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective and positive feedback
(Question 6, Appendix 1 & Question 7, Appendix 2)
As for the frequencies of correcting correct grammatical mistakes,

vocabulary and pronunciation mistakes, there is consistency between teachers’
and students’ responses. Specifically, most of the teachers and students, 60%
and 52.7%, corresponsive, say that grammatical mistakes are corrected very
often. Besides, the percentages of the teacher and student who advocate for
each of the next two other choices are quite the same. In compared with the
total number of the teachers and students choosing “usually”, that of those
advocating for “sometimes” is rather low. Thus, the implication is that
students’ grammatical mistakes are really of the teachers’ concern.
Meanwhile, teachers’ attention to this mistake type is mainly

acknowledged by “usually” or “sometimes” by both the teachers and the
57
students, leaving “very often” chosen by no one. Remarkably, whereas no
teachers say that mistakes on vocabulary are rarely corrected, about one fifth of
the students choose this answer choice.
With regards to students’ mistakes on pronunciation, the figures reveal

the significant differences between the teachers’ and the students’ responses.
Noticeably, whereas half of the teachers assert that in speaking lessons,
pronunciation mistakes are corrected very often, none of the students agree
with this idea. Moreover, in contrast with none of the teachers choosing
“rarely”, the percentage of students choosing it makes up to 32.3%, beyond the
researcher’ expectation.
In the nutshell, it can be asserted that among three types of mistakes on

form, grammatical mistakes get much of those teachers’ attention. However, it
is a bit confusing to decide whether mistakes on vocabulary or mistakes on
pronunciation are paid more attention to due to the conflicting ideas among
teachers and students. Thanks to the observation scheme, the truth can speak
for itself. Basing on the results, out of 27 feedback turns to correct the
students’ mistakes on form, 12 was addressed to students’ grammatical
mistakes, followed by 10 times for pronunciation mistakes and vocabulary
mistakes are at the lowest rank with only 5 times of being corrected by the
teacher (Appendix 6).
Explaining the reason why grammatical mistakes grab more attention

form the teachers, one teacher interviewees said that: “Undoubtedly, grammar
is so important that any English skills can not be built without it. In order to
utter a correct sentence, students must be clear about the grammar first.” (T1,
Appendix 3A). The matter of exam- orientation in teaching and learning is
once again reflected when another teacher strongly emphasized that “Grammar
58
is the first and foremost important thing because three forth of the exam paper
deals with it. Putting focus on grammar in speaking lessons is somehow like
killing two birds with one stone.” (T2, Appendix 3B)
In terms of mistakes on meaning, the table shows the frequency of

teachers’ using the three sub-types, i.e. mistakes on ideas, idea organizations
and logic of ideas.
` While there are extremely high percentages of the teachers and the
students proposing that students’ mistakes on ideas are sometimes corrected,
only a small number of those (20% and 10% respectively) thinking that
teachers usually give immediate corrective feedback on it. Besides, there are
equal figures (20% and 23%) representing the teachers and the students’ view
that this mistake type is rarely corrected.
Unlike approximately equal percentages of teachers and students sharing

the same opinion about the aforementioned points, there are big gaps between
the two groups of respondents relating to teachers’ frequency of correcting
mistakes on ideas organizations. Specifically, “usually” is chosen by 30% of
the teachers but by only 4.6% by the students. Similarly, the number of
teachers choosing “sometimes” is nearly twice as much as that of students with
the same option. Accordingly, the option four, “rarely”, is acknowledged by a
very high number of students (58.2%). Remarkably, 5.4% of students claim
that their teachers never pay take their mistakes on idea organizations into
account. It can be said that those teachers and students’ answers to this
question are of complete contradiction.
With those teachers’ correction on mistakes of logic of ideas, it comes as

a surprise that neither the teachers nor the students choose the two first options,
59
“very often” and “usually”. Moreover, the two groups’ answers to the rest
questions are shown in significantly different percentages (70% versus 17%,
30% versus 67%). Especially, up to 16% students claim that their mistakes on
logic of ideas are ignored by their teachers.
According to the results of the observation scheme, among the limited

feedback turns on the students’ mistakes on meaning, three out of five times is
for those students’ mistakes on ideas and twice is for mistakes on logic of
ideas, leaving no correction for students’ idea organizations (Appendix 6). In
summary, it can be briefly said that the contents of those teachers’ immediate
corrective feedback tend to address to students’ mistakes on ideas. In relation
with other two sub-types of mistakes on meaning, it is very hard to recognize
which is paid more attention to.
Also though this question, it once again proves that between students’
mistakes on form and meaning, the former one is undoubtedly the frequent
focus in the contents of those teachers’ immediate feedback.
Responding to the interview question aiming at the reasons for those

teachers’ focus on mistakes on ideas, one teacher claimed that it was due to the
typical feature of the requirement for the speaking tasks in textbook (T1,
Appendix 3A). More clearly, in speaking tasks, students are mostly required to
play a role in a small role-play in which each student is supposed to speak two
or three sentences only. Thus, the matter of idea organizations or logic of ideas
is hardly found problematic. This can be shown in the first tasks in the text-
book. Only in the last speaking task which requires more complex skill, do
students have to present a string of ideas. At that time, the way students
organize their ideas or the way they make their sentences coherent are often
paid attention to. This explanation is reasonable to some extents; however, in
60
the researcher’ experience, the problem of 11th-form students does not lie in
their lack or confusion of ideas but the way to put these ideas together
coherently and cohesively.
IV.1.2.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
80
70
53.6
60
50 40 39.9 40 Teacher
% 40 Student
20
30
20 6.5
10
0
Ability Effort Others
Figure 10: Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback

(Question 7, Appendix 1A)
As seen from this chart, whereas 20% of the teachers prefer
complimenting on students’ ability as responses to students’ good
performance, only 6.5% of the students reflect the same ideas. However, there
is a striking resemblance between the proportions of teachers and students
(40%) advocating for the second choice, teachers’ effort feedback.
Remarkably, beyond the researcher’s prediction, the number of teachers and
students expressing their own ideas about what to comment on students’ good
performance accounts for relatively half of the total number of respondents.
Some of them think that it should be depend on each type of students to give
ability or effort feedback. Noticeably, the majority of the teachers and students
respondents concur that the most common occurrence is teachers’ saying:
“Very good! Thank you.” or even simply “Good!” to compliment on students
good work. These results fall into the same lines with what was observed by
61
the researcher. Specifically, 15 out of 20 turns of teachers’ positive feedback
provision was evidence for those teachers’ and students’ other ideas (Appendix
6). Most of the time, the teacher commented: “Good/very good, thank you. Sit
down, please.” Five turns left was distributed to effort feedback, leaving no
feedback on students’ ability.
Back to teachers’ positive feedback on students’ good performance, the

reasons for those aforementioned results revealed by both the teachers and the
students are quite critical, in the researcher’s opinion. One representative for
those teachers in favor of effort feedback put it that “Whereas one’s innate
ability is limited, one’s effort is unlimited, to some extents. Thus, focusing on
the potential point is more advisable.” (T1, Appendix 3A).
That idea may also be used as an explanation for the students’ trends of
preferences for the contents of teachers’ positive feedback, which are
illustrated in the pie chart below.
Others Ability Figure 11: Students’ preferences

27% 26%
for the contents of teachers’
Effort immediate positive feedback
47%
(Question 8, Appendix 1B)
Recognizably, the number of students preferring teachers’ praises on

their effort occupies nearly half of all, leaving the rest proportion of 53%
equally distributed for those in favor of teachers’ ability feedback and those of
other ideas. In retrospect, whereas teachers’ ability feedback is recognized by
only 6.5% students (Figure 10), up to 26% of them show their expectation of it.
Explaining for that, they say, “Effort is something common but only individual
62
ability makes one different from others.” (S1, Appendix 4A). Nevertheless, one
student with preference for effort feedback put it that since not every student
possesses an innate ability and most of them have to try hard to achieve
something. Hence, there is nothing better than when their effort is recognized.
Added to this, another reason revealed that such the compliment on ability
sound a bit childish to 11-form students’ ears.
IV.1.3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
IV.1.3.1. Types of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
60
45.6
50
40
40
30
30
% 19.8 20
20 14.8 12
10
10 4.8 3 0 Teacher
0
0 Student
EX
Cl
Me
Re
Eli
Re
ari
c it
ca
pe
pli
ta
fic
lin
c it
st
ati
titi
ati
g
o
on
co
uit
n
o
rr e
nr
ic
cu
eq
cti
es
ue
on
s t
Figure 12: Teachers’ preferred types of immediate corrective feedback
In response to the question about teachers’ common ways of correcting

students’ mistakes among six given types, most of the teachers and students’
answers are in common. As inferred from the chart, repetition seems to be such
a preferred type that nearly 40% of those teachers use it to correct their
students’ mistake. Recasts and explicit correction come as follow when being
employed frequently by 30% and 20% of those teachers, corresponsively. The
63
three other types are the least common types, among of which clarification
request is preferred by no one.
With regards to students’ opinion, nearly a half of all assert that it is

repetition which is the most frequent way of their teachers’ immediate
correction. Remarkably, there is a coincidence in the number of students and
teachers choosing recasts as the frequent way of the teachers’ correction. In
addition, the teachers’ frequent use of the three other types is acknowledged by
only a few students and clarification request is believed to be their teachers’
favorite type by only 3% of them.
In short, as opposed to repetition, recasts and explicit correction which

are the most favorite ways of those teachers in their immediate correction
work, clarification request is used frequently by the smallest number of the
teachers. Interestingly enough, what is collected from the observation scheme
reveals the similar findings. In detail, among 32 times of using these six types
of corrective feedback, 12 and 8 times was for recast and repetition, accounting
for 37.5% and 25%, respectively. Explicit correction follows with five times of
being used. Accordingly, the other ways used less frequently and clarification
request together with elicitation were used only twice only (Appendix 6).
Naturally, among teachers’ different ways of giving immediate

corrective feedback, the type that each of the teacher uses must undoubtedly be
the most effective way as they perceive. Therefore, in order to fully understand
the matter with an objective view, the researcher investigated those students’
judgments about the effectiveness of their teachers’ preferred way, which is
demonstrated on the chart and the table below.
64
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Explicit Clarif icatio Metalinguis
Recasts Elicitation Repetition
correction n request tic cue
Extremely ef f ectiv e 7.4 10 42.7 0 2.9 4.2
Ef f ectiv e 9.3 14.2 47.4 0 3.4 29.7
Neutral 12.2 43.2 6.2 11.1 25 9
Quite ef f ectiv e 39.4 22.6 3.6 15.3 31.4 23.5
Inef f ectiv e 31.7 0 0 74.6 37.3 33.6
Figure 13: Students’ ideas about the effectiveness of teachers’ types of

corrective feedback (Question 9, Appendix 1B)
Recognizably, that elicitation is the most effective way is supported by

the vast majority of students, 42.7% for “extremely effective” and 47.4% for
“effective”. Following is explicit correction which is thought highly of by
24.2% of the students. Recast which are said to be used by quite a lot of
teachers is mostly considered as quite effective. In other extreme, regarding the
ineffective way, clarification request ranks first as responses of more than three
fourth of the students, followed by metalinguistic cues and repetition. It can be
seen that those students’ judgments about repetition’s effectiveness and recasts
are rather conflicting.
In comparison between those teachers’ preferred types of feedback and

those students’ perceptions about the effectiveness of these ways, more
mismatch are found than match. As for the similarities, clarification request
used at the lowest frequency by those teachers is also received the worst
attitudes from the students. On the other hand, mismatch loom when recast and
repetition used at a high frequency by teachers are not really appreciated by the
65
students as discussed in detail above. Significantly, whereas elicitation is the
most preferred by those students, it is used by only 10% of the teachers.
When the teachers and the students explained for their preferences of
different immediate corrective feedback types, the reasons for those match and
mismatch were disclosed simultaneously. Concerning teachers’ opinion about
clarification request, one teacher said that it’s no use trying to elicit students by
asking “What do you mean by...?”, “I don’t understand” or “I’m sorry?”, etc.
because it will make students more confused (T1, Appendix 3A). The same
opinion is directed to metalinguistic cues. Sharing the teacher’ ideas, one
student put it that when being responded “I’m sorry?”, “Pardon me?”, students
may mistakenly think that teachers aim at asking for students’ repetition
because they cannot hear students clearly (S1, Appendix 4B). That is also the
reason why whereas repetition and recast is used by many of the teachers but
not in favor of those students. Relating to the fact that elicitation is most
preferred by students but used at low frequency by the teachers, the answers
from those teachers and students showed more evidence for these polarized
ideas. Actually, to prompt students to correct mistakes by elicitation, teachers
may ask “What is the word?”, “Well, say that again” or pause and let students
complete the utterance like the example in the questionnaire. However, the
researcher wanted to shift those teachers and students’ thought about the last
way. According to another interviewee, “elicitation by pausing and letting
students complete the utterance is surely the easiest way for students’ mistakes
to be corrected. However, it’s not necessary to remind them of the related or
previous knowledge all the time. In some cases, it even makes students lazy to
think.” (T1, Appendix 3A). In contrast, one student showed her preference of
being shown in details what to correct and the reasons for correction, as well so
66
that they will know how to self-correct the same mistakes next time. (S3,
Appendix 4C)
IV.1.3.2. Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
The collected data from both the teachers and the students about types of
teachers’ immediate positive feedback are represented in the chart below.
12
Sentence 30
Student
31 Teacher
Phrase
10
57
One word 60
0 20 40
% 60 80
Figure 14: Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback

As shown, the first answer choice that teachers’ immediate praises tend
to take form of only one word is acknowledged by the equal proportions of the
teachers and the students, 60% and 57% respectively. Recognizably, those are
such significant figures in compared with the rest of advocates for the two
other choices. Specifically, only 10% teachers say that they usually use phrases
to comment on their students’ good work; however, the number of students
advocating for this is threefold. Aversely, the number of teachers (30%) saying
that delivering full sentences are their typical ways of giving positive feedback
is nearly three times more than that of students who see it in practice.
Briefly, as for the forms of teachers’ expression for praises, teachers’

using short forms including words and phrases considerably exceeds the
frequency of using complex forms including simple, complex and compound
sentences. This result could be re-checked and proved via the researcher’s
67
observation, which showed that only three out of 20 times of the teachers’
immediate positive provision was in form of full sentences. (Appendix 6)
Regarding students’ preferences for types of teachers’ immediate

positive feedback, it is shown in details in the following pie chart.
17%
43% Figure 15: Students’ preferences
40%
for types of teachers’ immediate
positive feedback (Question 10,
Words Phrases Sentences

Appendix 1B)
Noticeably, the two equal proportions of the students who prefer words
and phrases for teachers’ praises together make up to more than 80% of
advocates for short forms of expression in teachers’ feedback. Three student
interviewees supported to their teachers’ using short forms of expression for
their compliments by emphasizing that only one word like “Good”, “Fine” is
enough to make them know that their good points are recognized. (S1, S2 &
S3, Appendix 4A, 4B & 4C)
When being asked about the reasons why the majority of teachers use
short forms of expression, especially only one word when giving feedback, one
teacher said that: “They have to make it short and simple because of the limited
time.” (T2, Appendix 3B). In terms of teachers’ praises in complex forms, this
teacher also shared that teachers sometimes compliment that “That’s good.
Come on!” or “It’s very nice. What’s else?” while those sentences like “You
did it very well. Try harder.” or “I like it very much. Keep up your good
work.” tend to be delivered after students finish speaking.
68
In one word, those teachers’ preferred type of short-formed expressions,
which, fortunately, lives up to most of their students’ expectation.
To sum up, this chapter has shed light on the four research questions.
Firstly, it unveils that the majority of the target teachers and students shows the
positive perceptions of teachers’ delivering oral feedback on the spot.
Secondly, regarding the contents delivered in those teachers’ spontaneous
feedback, feedback on form, especially on grammar is highly used in those
teachers’ correction work and effort feedback seems to be preferred to ability
feedback. Remarkably, in practice, those teachers tend to use general ways of
praises such as “Good!” or “Very good”. Finally, in terms of the different types
of this feedback, whereas those teacher and student participants show the
mismatch between their preferred types of corrective feedback, they are
unanimous in the preferred types of positive feedback.
IV.2. Discussion of the results
IV.2.1. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate

From the results of the three instruments, it looks to the researcher that
both the teachers and the students show the favorable attitudes towards the role
of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons, opposed to the
mixed attitudes shown in Lewis & Anderson (1985). Whereas, in some recent
researches, there have been conflicting ideas about whether immediate or
delayed feedback is more beneficial for a language lesson, those target teachers
and students insists on the big advantages of this feedback type. One of its
most significant advantages acknowledged by both the teachers and the
students lies in the fact that the teachers can give help or encouragement just in
time their students expect. Especially, the target students show their strong
69
preference for this feedback for the sake of their confidence when speaking out
loud. Literally, it is not a negative attitude; however, one question looming in
the researcher’s mind is whether those students over-abuse this advantage to
make up for their passiveness and lack of confidence in speaking lessons. This
question stems from the fact that those students often find themselves so
nervous during their performance that they still want their teachers to strictly
follow their speaking and help them as much as possible. As recognized
through the observation, when the students are unsure about something or
intuitively know that they have uttered something wrong, instead of keeping
speaking, they tend to speak with a halt or pause until the teacher elicits them.
That, undoubtedly, is an example for students’ dependence on teachers’
immediate feedback which does not reflect the essence of CLT approach in the
sense that students should be active and independent in learning.
In terms of the small number of students rejecting teachers’ immediate

oral feedback, basing on their sharing, the researcher thinks that their
unfavorable attitudes do not necessarily equal their unawareness of the
importance of this feedback. It is their difficulties in learning as well as some
bad experience with teachers’ feedback that leave them no expectations for
being commented by their teacher. In this vein, the matter of teachers’
enthusiasm and devotion in general and how teachers give successful
immediate feedback to students, especially bad students, in particular is
obviously of overriding concern.
In addition, the extremely high frequency of those teachers’ using

immediate oral feedback also draws the researcher’s attention. Through the
observation scheme, the researcher found that apart from immediate oral
feedback, those teachers seemingly make little to no use of delayed feedback
70
which is useful in some situations. In the Vietnamese language teaching and
learning context, there is hardly any time when teachers walks around to note
down students’ mistakes while they are working in speaking groups. Therefore,
it is likely that there are two different reasons for this high frequency of using
immediate oral feedback. The first one is that those teachers really appreciate
this feedback type for its importance and advantages. The other one, which is
negative, lies in those teachers’ unchanged habits of using on-the-spot
feedback and their hesitation in trying a new way of walking around and taking
notes of students’ mistakes, which is quite popular in CLT method.
Concerning those respondents’ opinions about whether teachers’

immediate corrective or positive feedback is preferred, the data collected
disclose their wish for both of them. However, under the condition of limited
time for teachers’ feedback, they put their priority on the correction work.
This result falls in lines with that in Dunkin and Biddle (1974, cited in Burnett,
2002) where teachers’ positive feedback occurred on average only 6% of the
time. This attitude, obviously, reflects their great concern about students’
making mistakes and their awareness of the importance of teachers’ immediate
correction work in speaking lessons. Furthermore, it can be considered as such
a positive sign in the teaching and learning English in Vietnamese context. In
common sense, in most of the high schools, English in general and speaking
skill in particular has still been said as the most difficult subject. Sadly enough,
except those who have intention of choosing English as one of the target
subjects for university entrance exams, most of the rest do not show serious
attitudes towards it, resulting in less devotion of many teachers. As a
consequence, strained atmosphere in English lessons, especially speaking
lessons is common occurrence and to lessen it, both teachers and students do
not focus much on correction work anymore. However, the data collected from
71
the target respondents seem to show the different thing. Indeed, in the CLT
approach, “mistakes are seen as positive step towards learning (...), no mistakes
in a lesson means no real learning has taken place” and “correction is an
integral part of the lesson” (Nguyen et al., 2003, p.19). Therefore, the
responses of those participants clearly demonstrate their positive attitudes.
IV.2.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback for 11th-form

students in speaking lessons
IV.2.2.1. Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
As analyzed in the section V.1.2.1, the teachers in this school are in big
favor of giving feedback on form, which matches with the preference of those
students in Salle (2004). For what best known to the researcher, CLT approach
has paved its way into many schools and Nguyen Binh Khiem high school is
not an exception. However, what was advocated by these teachers seems to run
against the theory of this approach. To make it clear, in CLT approach, it is not
linguistic or grammatical competence but communicative competence which is
put focus on. In this vein, students are not supposed to simply learn the
linguistic structures and grammar rules. Rather, they should be actively making
meaning through activities (Rodgers, 2001) and also learn new language via
these meaningful activities. It should not be mistakenly interpreted that
mistakes on form are ignored. One of the common criticisms of this approach
is that such concentration on language behavior may result in negative
consequences in the sense that important structures and rules would be left out.
Thus, it is the teacher who must balance his/ her attention to his/ her students’
grammatical mistakes and other mistakes on from with mistakes on meaning.
72
In the smaller scale related to those teachers’ distribution of attention to
sub-types of mistakes on meaning, the students’ mistakes on ideas are believed
to grab more attention than idea organizations and logic of ideas. The
researcher partly agrees with one of the teacher interviewees’ explanation that
frequent attention to students’ mistakes on ideas is influenced by the typical
structure and requirements of speaking tasks. To be more detailed, when
engaging in speaking tasks, students are mostly required to play a role in a
small role-play in which each student is supposed to speak two or three
sentences only. Thus, the problem of idea organizations or logic of ideas is
hardly encountered. Not until in the last speaking task which requires more
complex skill do students have to present a string of ideas, are the ways
students organize their ideas or the ways they make their sentences coherent
paid attention to. Unfortunately, due to the problem in time management of
many teachers, lack of time for students’ performance in the last task is
common occurrence, leaving no chances for teachers’ feedback on students’
organizations or logic of ideas. To some extents; however, in the researcher’
experience, the problem of 11th-form students does not lie in their lack or
confusion of ideas but the way to put these ideas together coherently and
cohesively. Therefore, students’ performance in the last speaking task deserves
the investment of more time as well as more teachers’ attention.
In retrospect, from the subjunctive viewpoint of the researcher, those

teachers’ conception and their practice in correction work might be strongly
related the matter of limited time.
IV.2.2.2. Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
With regards to frequency of teachers’ use of ability and effort feedback,

emphasis should be placed on the fact that most of the teachers and students
73
support teachers’ positive feedback on students’ effort. This result indicates the
consistency with 84% of students preferring to be praised for trying hard rather
than for having good ability, which was shown in Burnett’s 2001 study. In the
researcher’s opinion, this idea is understandable for some reasons. One of the
main reasons is that students’ innate ability varies from one to another; thus, it
is unfair to set the same criteria to judge all students in learning. From bad to
worse, many teachers’ praises on students’ ability sometimes backfire when
resulting in over-confidence or arrogance in those whom these praises are
addressed to and, simultaneously, leading to the inferior complex in the other
who are hardly ever complimented by teachers. The second reason lies in the
common sense that ability feedback tends to be given to younger students in
primary or secondary school, as one of the interviewed student stated. This
may make no sense to someone; however, to the researcher, it can be explained
in accordance with the typical feature in the psychology of those students in
this age. In other words, they are in the period of life when they like trying and
trading their effort for achievements. According, they want their effort to be
recognized and praised by other.
It is also noteworthy that about one half of the teachers usually say
“Good!” or “Very good!” as responses to their students’ good performance. To
the researcher, it is very difficult to interpret whether this compliment is on
students’ ability or their effort. However, it seems to be supported by the
majority of the students. Since this way of giving feedback is less time-
consuming; it is obvious that the matter of time limit for teachers’ feedback
provision once again arises.
74
IV.2.3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback for 11th-form
students in speaking lesson
IV.2.3.1. Types of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback
In comparison with what is reviewed about the frequency of teachers’

using different types of immediate corrective feedback, the results of this
interview show both similarities and differences. Firstly, the finding of this
research is similar to that in Panova and Lyster (2006) in the notion of highly
frequent use of recast by teachers. Added to this, both of the two target
students in the two different studies show no appreciation of this way.
According to the researcher, the idea of one student in Nguyen Binh Khiem
high school is quite critical when she explained that students may not realize
teachers’ recast as it sound like teachers’ mere repetition of one correct answer
of students. Indeed, this is a common occurrence to students of crowded and
noisy classes or ones of insufficiently good learning ability.
However, in term of the differences, it is not recast which are mostly

used by the teachers, as found in Panova and Lyster (2006), but elicitation,
instead. In the researcher’s opinion, in most of the cases, it would be the best if
teachers can give students the corrective feedback in details which means the
inclusion of what, why and how to correct. Like what is said by the student
interviewee, it really helps students to understand the nature of their mistakes
to the full and know how to deal with the same types of mistakes later on by
themselves. In other words, it enhances students’ skill of self-correction, which
is really encouraged in the CLT approach. Still, in retrospect, one of the
hindrances surrounding this careful work is the limited time. Lack of time for
teachers’ and students’ presentation is unavoidable if any of students mistakes
are treated the aforementioned way. Therefore, teachers should consider when
75
is really necessary to use this way of correcting because other ways of mistake
correction may also work.
IV.2.3.2. Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback
Between the two major types of positive feedback divided by the writer
of this research, it is reflected by the target respondents that simple forms such
as words, phrases are used at the higher frequency in teachers’ feedback than
complex form such as simple sentences, complex and compound sentences.
Most of the explanation for the teachers’ preference for positive feedback in
the simple form is related to the limited time. Having some experience about it,
the writer of this research agrees that it is very difficult for teachers to balance
between the time for teachers and students’ presentation and that for teachers’
feedback. Back to the question about which type of feedback, corrective or
positive, those teachers and students tend to put priority on, most of them
consider correction work is more important. Accordingly, within the restricted
time for feedback which is to be distributed to both correction and praises, that
less time is spent on praises is inevitable. Therefore, it is understandable when
those teachers tend to use the short forms of expression to make sure that more
students are complimented on their good performances.
IV.3. Pedagogical suggestions for improving the teachers’ immediate

oral feedback in speaking lessons for 11th-form students in Nguyen Binh
Khiem High School, Hanoi
Basing on the results above, especially on the critical answers from both
of the interviewed teachers and the students, the researcher would like to
venture some suggestions for the sake of the effectiveness of the provision of
teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons for 11th-form students in
particular and for all the high school in Vietnam.
76
In terms of the respondents’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral
feedback, there have existed some significant points. Firstly, it is the possibility
that some students may be dependent too much on teachers’ feedback as a help
when they are prone to be wrong or as an encouragement to make sure
immediately that they are getting the right ways. When being used in this way,
teachers’ immediate oral feedback shows its disadvantages in merely giving
students comforts and correction without developing students’ confidence and
activeness in learning. Hence, teachers should wisely consider when to give
immediate feedback to create some chances for students’ brain to work
independently. In another way, delayed feedback should be used as an
alternative when necessary. By the way, those teachers should get used to
taking notes of their students’ mistakes during their working in groups. Added
to this, students are supposed to change their view about their role in learning
speaking skill to be more active when engaging into the speaking lessons.
Through one student’ sharing about how they lost interest in their
teachers’ immediate oral feedback, the suggestion coming up to the researcher
concerns teachers’ attitudes shown when they give feedback to students.
Giving immediate oral feedback, especially immediate corrective feedback
should always be done not only carefully but also patiently. More emphasis
should be placed on corrective feedback to students who are seemingly not
sufficiently inceptive have difficulties in realizing and correcting their mistakes
immediately or in quite a short time. It is not advisable for them to ignore these
mistakes. Rather, some special ways of treating students’ interminable
mistakes should be created. In the researcher’s subjunctive viewpoint, to this
type of students, it is advisable for teachers to give them more positive
feedback to motivate them first and correction comes after. Also, delayed
feedback might works then. As for those students in the same situation, they
77
are recommended not to loose hope in their improvement and interests in
teachers’ feedback. Instead, students should maintain their positive attitudes
towards their teachers’ immediate oral feedback to co-operate with teachers so
that more benefits can be brought about.
With regards to the contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback,

emphasis should be placed on teachers’ balance of different contents of
feedback. Thus, it is the teacher who must balance his/ her attention to
students’ mistakes on form with mistakes on meaning. Furthermore, teachers
should bear in mind about the CLT approach which they are applying so that
more of their attention should be shift to students’ mistakes on meaning,
instead of their mistakes on form only. It should also be noted that, teaching
and learning English in general and that based on CLT approach in particular
should never occur only for the sake of exam itself. In fact, it is one of the most
controversial issues concerning Vietnam education and all the measures for it
seem to be far from effective.
As for different types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback, it is

advisable for teachers to make decisions about which types tends to benefits
different types of students. It is because that each group or each individual
student has different perceptions of it. Also, to avoid mismatch between the
students’ preferred types of feedback and teachers’ high frequency of using
other types, students’ reaction to teachers’ feedback provision should be
thought highly of to ensure the effectiveness of the correction work. Similarly,
all the teachers should consider about the pros and cons of ability feedback and
effort feedback to make sure that teachers’ feedback benefits their students’
learning to the most.
78
When it comes to the limitation of time in one lesson, it is obviously a
contributing factor to teachers’ insufficient feedback or teachers and students’
priorities. So far, there have been no ideas by the Ministry of Education and
Training about increasing time for one lesson in high school’s classes. Thus, in
order to fully complete the teachers’ feedback work, teachers are subject to
learn how to squeeze time successfully. This requirement, accordingly,
reminds teachers of producing lessons plan carefully in which teachers have to
estimate the time distribution to every single activities including giving and
receiving immediate oral feedback.
Last but not least, to discuss the issues in the broader scale which
concerns not only teachers’ immediate oral feedback but anything related to the
improvement in the efficiency of a speaking lesson, the researcher proposes
that speaking skill should be included as part of the English exams in high
school’s syllabus. To the researcher, there seems to be a paradox when
speaking is part of the syllabus but there are no exams for it. As for students,
when the matter of grades has been embedded in the psyche of most of them,
they will have little to no stimulus to learn the subjects which are not for
exams. As a result, lack of attention from both teachers and students to this
skill is common occurrence. Therefore, only by adding speaking skill into the
list of the subjects for exam, more effort by both teachers and students will be
put into the improvement in the quality of teaching and learning act including
teachers’ feedback work, as well.
79
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
In the previous chapters, the introduction to the whole paper, the
literature review, the methodology employed in the research, the results of the
data collected and the researcher’ discussion about the related issues have
been demonstrated in details. In this chapter, summary, evaluation of the
contributions and the limitations of the paper as a whole will be presented.
V.1. Summary
After all the data collected from the three instruments are analyzed,
some major findings which shed light on the four research questions are
revealed as follows:
Firstly, the results have suggested that most of the teachers and students
express their favorable attitudes towards teachers’ immediate oral feedback.
This is firstly shown in their thinking highly of its importance and advantages.
Besides, it can also be unveiled via the teachers’ high frequency of using this
feedback type in speaking lessons and via students’ expression about their
desire to be provided with immediate oral feedback all the time, especially
when they perform badly. Although there are some students objecting to this
feedback, it is not due to the nature of the feedback itself but their bad
experience with other related factors like their own ability or their teachers’
ways of delivering immediate oral feedback, etc.
As for the contents of the feedback, the vast majority of immediate

corrective feedback focus on form, among which, grammatical mistakes are
put priority on. Regarding feedback on meaning, the teachers’ most frequent
attention is paid to their students’ mistakes on ideas. Meanwhile, mistakes on
students’ organizations of ideas and logic of ideas which really deserve
teachers’ correction tend to be paid less attention to. In terms of contents of
80
teachers’ immediate positive feedback, effort feedback seems to be preferred to
ability feedback. Nevertheless, as remarkable as it is, most of the participants
suggest the other ways of complimenting just by “Good” or “Very good” only
to save time for other students to speak and to be corrected.
Thirdly, the question about types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback

has also been answered satisfactorily. Concerning immediate corrective
feedback, there are some mismatches between teachers’ preferred types and
students’ judgments. Noticeably, whereas recast, repetition and explicit
correction are used at a high frequency by teachers, these immediate corrective
feedback types are not really appreciated by students. Moreover, elicitation
which is the most favorable to students turns out to be the least frequent way.
Regarding two types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback, both teachers
and students support the use of simple-formed expression including words and
phrases. Teachers’ positive feedback taking form of a sentence, compound or
complex, seems not to be practical in immediate feedback.
Lastly, the researchers’ worries about some remaining points in both the
teachers and the students and the practice of teachers’ immediate feedback
provision as opposed to the nature of CLT approach are discussed. Basing on
the discussion, some pedagogical propositions are put forward in the hope of
making contribution to the improvement of the practice of teachers’ immediate
oral feedback as well as the quality of teaching and learning speaking skill.
V.2. Contributions of the study
This study, conducted with the researcher’ enormous devotion, has made
contributions to the practice of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in general.
On the whole, the research gives an overview of the practice of

employing immediate oral feedback by the teachers in Nguyen Binh Khiem
81
high school in Hanoi as well as their students’ perceptions of it. To some
extents, the results produced in this research may deepen the overall
understanding of the situation of teachers’ using this feedback types in high
schools in Vietnam.
As for teachers of English in general and those in this school in

particular, this research might be of substantial help in giving them further
understanding about students’ expectations and preferences for the types and
the contents of the immediate oral feedback. Added to this, the pedagogical
suggestions put forward by the researcher might be useful for those teachers in
adjusting some remaining points in their feedback work. That will,
undoubtedly, improve the efficiency of teachers’ feedback and the quality of
teaching and learning speaking, accordingly.
Finally, with regards to researchers who are interested in conducting a

research in the same field, this paper would provide them a reliable source of
preferences. Moreover, what the writer of this paper suggests for further study
may also help in their determination in the scope of study.
V.3. Limitations of the study
Despite the exhaustive efforts put in conducting this study, limitations

are unavoidable.
Firstly, the number of the participant seems to be small. If the researcher

had been able to collect data from more participants’ responses, the results
could have been generalized.
Secondly, the number of classroom observations seems to be inadequate.

If the researcher had been able to observe more lessons, the practice of
teachers’ immediate oral feedback could have been unveiled more clearly.
Fortunately, the survey questionnaire, especially the semi-structured interview
82
was conducted very carefully; hence, the validity of the collected data could
already be guaranteed.
In short, in spite of these shortcomings, with the researcher’s serious

attitudes and great enthusiasm in carrying out this work, reliability and validity
can still be obtained. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these
aforementioned limitations should be taken into consideration when related
studies are conducted in the future.
V.4. Suggestions for further study

After conducting this study, the researcher would like to propose some
suggestions which may be useful for further study.
Firstly, since teachers’ immediate oral feedback is employed in almost

classrooms, different ways of tackling this issue can be done by adjusting the
scope of the study. In terms of content, immediate corrective feedback and
immediate positive feedback can be investigated separately for deeper
understanding. Moreover, immediate positive feedback may be investigated on
the relationship between teachers’ immediate feedback and its impact on
students’ emotional states and attitudes in lessons. In addition, this issue can be
investigated in different groups of participants. In another way, the selected
participants may be of different levels such as elementary, secondary students
or university students or they may be of a large group such as 11th-form
students in Hanoi or Vietnamese EFL learners. Changing in scope of study will
help to tackle the same issue with different perspectives.
Secondly, with regards to instruments for data collection, classroom

observations should be made maximum use of. Undoubtedly, it really helps out
to determine which reflect the truth among all the participants’ responses;
especially, when mismatches between the target students and teachers loom.
83
REFERENCES
Books
Edge, J. (1998). Mistakes and Correction. New York: Longman
Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking rules: Generating and exploring alternatives in

language teaching. NewYork: Longman.
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative language teaching. Cambridge:

Cambrige University Press
Mc.Namara, E. (1999). Positive Pupil Management and Motivation: A

secondary Teachers’ Guide. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Nguyen, B., et al. (2003). BA Upgrade: English Language Teaching

Methodology. Hanoi: NXB Van Hoa-Thong Tin.
Nguyen,H. (2009). Possible causes of common speaking errors made by first

year students in English ddepartment, HULIS, VNU. Hanoi: Vietnam National
University of Hanoi.
Oxford Dictionary of Current English. (2004). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Vanjendra, K.V & Mallick, G. (1991). Researching education: Perspectives

and techniques. Oxfords: Flamer Press
Journals Articles
Anyon, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second
language acquisition of the passe compose and impartfait. The Modern Language
Journal, 85, 226-238.
84
Brookhart, S. (1998). How to give effective feedback to your students. ELT
Journal, 63 (3), 35-37.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2005). Error correction: Students' versus
teachers' perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 112–127.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language

acquisition. ELT Journal, 1, 26-28.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional

counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19 (1), 37–66.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive
interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471–497.
Panova, I., & Lyster ,R. (2001). Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake
in an Adult ESL Classroom. Language Learning, 21 (2), 26-33.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions

concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia.
The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.
Tere’se, H. (2005). Oral feedback: Students’ reactions and opinions.

Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2, 12-15.
Internet
85
Al-Fahdi, M.H. (2006). English language teachers’ use of oral feedback.
Retrieved April 3, 2010, from
http:// www.moe.gov.om/Portal/sitebuilder/sites/EPS/English/.../Ch7.pdf
Beare, K. (2003). Student correction during class : How and when? Retrieved
March 27, 2010, from
http://esl.about.com/od/esleflteachingtechnique/i/i_correction.htm
Bempechat, J. (2002). Attribution theory & motivation: Learning from poor

and minority students who succeed in school. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-mj/abstracts.shtml#a1
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the

learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22 (2), 151-167. Retrieved
December 18, 2009, from http://jjpartners.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/feedback-and-
criticism/
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types
of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
14, 191–205. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from
http://www.docjax.com/document/view.shtml?id=713486&title=The%20effect%20of
%20different%20types%20of%20corrective%20feedback%20on%20ESL%20...24
Burnett, P. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of

the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 2(1), 17-21. Retrieved April
11, 2010 from
http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/milestones/Progression/ /TeacherPraise.pdf.
Bygate, M. (1987). Language teaching: A scheme for teacher education,

speaking. Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from
http://www.google.com/books?hl=vi&lr=&id=XozCwaqSJFIC&oi=fnd&pg
86
Chan, A. (2008). TESOL 2008 Feedback: Correct or not correct students’ oral
production. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 2-4. Retrieved
March 26, 2010, from
http://www.ccsf.edu/Resources/Teacher_Resource_Center/.../oralfeedback.doc
Crane, H. (2008). Feedback in the context of spoken language: Student's

feedback on learning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 73, 397-398.
Retrieved March 11, 2010, from
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article/oral-feedback-context-written.html
Diane.J.T. (1998). The Bridge: From research to practice: Research on error

correction and implications for classroom teaching. ACIE Newsletter, 1 (3), 12-14.
Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http:// www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/ACIE/vol1/May1998.pdf -
Feedback. Retrieved February 27, 2010, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
Fleming, M., & Levie, W.H. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles
from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Educational Technology Publications. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://books.google.com/books?id=vLxPAAAAMAAJ&dq=intitle:Instructional+intit
le:message+intitle:design&lr=&as_brr=0&pgis=1.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of

Educational Research. 77, 81-112. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from:
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/81
Lewis, M.W & Anderson, J.R. (1985). Discrimination of operator schemata in

problem solving: Procedural learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 26-
65. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/18/5/1103/
87
Lightbown, M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. (Revised
Ed.), 104-106 Oxford: Oxford University Press,. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://spzwww.uni-muenster.de/~griesha/fsu/cia/lispa-def.html#meta
Moss, H. (2002). The correction of students’ oral errors. British Council

(Portugal). Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://www.pt.ritish council.org/journal/j1127hm.htm
Robert, J. (2003). Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based

Strategies For Increasing Student Achievement. Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://dyslexia.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/providing-feedback-to-your-students/
Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Language Teaching Methodology. Issue Paper, 1, 3-5.

Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/rodgers.html
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since

Lyster and Ranta (1997). Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6 (1),
21-31. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://e-
flt.nus.edu.sg/v6n12009/russell.htm
Rydahl, S. (2006). Oral Feedback in the English Classroom: Teachers'

Thoughts and Awareness. Retrieved February 27, 2010 from
http://www.essays.se/essay/77784fa984/
Salle, H. (2004). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback
on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. Retrieved February
28, 2010, from hhtp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1060374396900168
Tunstall, P. & Gipps, C.(1996). Teacher feedback to young children in

formative assessment: A Typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22 (4), 1-
6. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1501722
88
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from
http://www.moe.gov. /Portal/sitebuilder/sites/EPS/English/MOE/baproject/Ch7.pdf
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Assessment for learning (AfL): Oral and written

feedback. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/primary/primaryframework/assessmen
t/dafl/fol/page002
Strain, N. et al. (1983). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for

teachers. New York: Academic Press. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from
http:// www.jstor.org/stable/3587962
Chaney, M. (1998). Teacher and student attitudes towards teacher feedback.

RELC Journal, 38 (1), 38-52. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from
http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/1/38
Wallace, K. (1999). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers.

New York: Academic Press. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from
http:// www.jstor.org/stable/3587962
89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
Appendix 1A: Survey Questionnaire for Teachers

Appendix 1B: Survey Questionnaire for Students – English version
Appendix 1C: Survey Questionnaire for Students – Vietnamese version
(Please turn to the next page)
90
APPENDIX 1A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS
I am a fourth-year student at English department, College of Foreign Languages,
Vietnam National University of Hanoi. I am conducting a thesis concerning “Teachers’
Oral Immediate Feedback in Speaking Lessons for 11th- form Students in Nguyen Binh
Khiem High School , Hanoi.” and this survey questionnaire is conducted to collect data for
the thesis. Therefore, your participation in completing this questionnaire is highly
appreciated. It is guaranteed that all your personal information as well as your answers will
be kept confidential and not be used for any other purposes.
Thank you very much!
========================= ===== ====
Name: ...................................................
Class(es) in charge:..............................
I/ Teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
1. How do you judge the importance of immediate oral feedback in speaking
lessons? Circle the degree you choose.
(Unimportant) 1: … 2: … 3: … 4: … 5: … (Extremely important)
2. What d you perceive as advantages of immediate oral feedback?
a. Teachers give oral feedback just in time students need teachers’ help or
encouragement.
b. Students can correct mistakes while a problem is still fresh in their mind;
therefore, it’s easy to remember.
c. It helps to improve the interaction between teachers and students during

lessons.
d. It makes students feel that they are listened to by teachers while speaking.
e. Others:(please specify)………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. How often do you use immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons? Circle the
degree you choose.
(Never) 1: … 2: … 3: … 4: … 5: … (Always)
91
4. When do you usually give your immediate oral feedback to your students?
a. When students perform well
b. When students perform badly
c. Both
II/ Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
5. Which kinds of mistakes do you pay more attention to when correcting

mistakes immediately?
a. Mistakes on form (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation)
b. Mistakes on meaning (ideas, ideas organizations, logic of ideas)
6. How often do you correct each of these following types of mistakes? Put a tick (٧)
in the table below.
Types of mistakes Frequency of teachers’ use

Very often Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
Mistakes Grammar
on form
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Mistakes Ideas
on
Idea
meaning
Organizations
Logic of ideas
7. How would you usually compliment on your students’ good performance?
a. You’re very smart. / You are a very good student.
b. You’ve tried so hard. / You put a lot of effort into it.
c.Others: (please specify) ..............................................................................................
92
II/ Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
8. Suppose your student uttered a wrong sentence like: “I must to go now.”, how
would you correct his/her mistakes? Put a tick (٧) in the table below.
I would say
No Types of corrective feedback
“…”
1. “Yeah, good. I must go now”
(Recasts)
2. “No, I should say I must go now.”
(Explicit correction)
3. “Oh, must is a modal auxiliary verb, so any
verb coming after it must be…”
(Elicitation)
4. “What do you mean by I must to go?
(Clarification request)
5. “Do we say must to go?”
(Metalinguistic cues)
6. “must to go?” (+ raising tone)
(Repetition)
9. When complimenting on your students’ good performance, you usually use...?
a. Only one word (good, well-done, excellent, perfect, etc.)
b. Phrases (more than exact, good job, etc.)
c. Full sentences (You are excellent! You did it very well!, etc)
================== ====== === === ===
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE!
93
APPENDIX 1B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
I am a fourth-year student at English department, College of Foreign Languages,

Vietnam National University of Hanoi. I am conducting a thesis concerning “Teachers’
Oral Immediate Feedback in Speaking Lessons for 11th- form Students in Nguyen Binh
Khiem High School, Hanoi” and this survey questionnaire is conducted to collect data for
the thesis. Therefore, your participation in completing this questionnaire is highly
appreciated. It is guaranteed that all your personal information as well as your answers will
be kept confidential and not be used for any other purposes.
Thank you very much!
========================= ===== ====
Name: ........................................................
Class: .................
I/ Students’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
1. How do you judge the importance of immediate oral feedback in speaking
lessons? Circle the degree you choose.
(Unimportant) 1: … 2: … 3: … 4: … 5: … (Extremely important)
2. What do you perceive as advantages of immediate oral feedback? You can
choose more than one.
a. Teachers give oral feedback just in time students need teachers’ help or
encouragement.
b. Students can correct mistakes while a problem is still fresh in their mind;
therefore, it’s easy to remember.
c. It helps to improve the interaction between teachers and students during
lessons.
d. It makes students feel that they are listened to by teachers while speaking.
e. Others:(please specify)…………………………….………………………..…
..............................................................................................................................
3. How often does your teacher use immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons?
Circle the degree you choose.
(Never) 1: … 2: … 3: … 4: … 5: … (Always)
94
4. Circle the degree that reflects your expectation for teachers’ immediate oral
feedback.
(Not want at all) 1: ... 2: ... 3: ...4: ... 5: ... (Really want)
Others: (Please specify)………………………………………………………………
..............................................................................................................................
5. When do you want to receive your teacher’s immediate oral feedback?
a. When performing well b. When performing badly c. Both
II/ Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
6. Which kinds of mistakes does your teacher pay more attention to when
correcting mistakes immediately?
a. Mistakes on form (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation)
b. Mistakes on meaning (ideas, ideas organizations, logic of ideas)
7. How often does your teacher correct each of these following types of mistakes?
Put a tick (٧) in the table below.
Types of mistakes Frequency of teachers’ use
Very often Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
Mistakes Grammar
on form
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Mistakes Ideas
on
Idea
meaning
Organizations
Logic of ideas
8. Cỉrcle the way that your teacher usually compliments on your good
performance? Then, please put a tick (٧) in the box beside the way you prefer.
a. You’re very smart. / You are a very good student. ‫ٱ‬

b. You’ve tried so hard. / You put a lot of effort into it. ‫ٱ‬
c.Others: (please specify) .............................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
95
III/ Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
9. Suppose you uttered a wrong sentence like: “I must to go now.”, how would
your teacher correct your mistakes? Put a tick (√) in the box in the 3rd column. Please
judge the effectiveness of that way by writing 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 in the box in the 4th column.
(1= ineffective; 2= quite effective; 3= neutral; 4= effective; 5= extremely effective)
My teacher Degree of
No Types of corrective feedback
would say “…” effectiveness
1. “Yeah, good. I must go now”

(Recasts)
□ □
2. “No, I should say I must go now.”
(Explicit correction)
□ □
3. “Oh, must is a modal auxiliary verb, so any
verb coming after it must be…” □ □
(Elicitation)
4. “What do you mean by I must to go?

(Clarification request)
□ □
5. “Do we say must to go?”
(Metalinguistic cues)
□ □
6. “must to go?” (+ raising tone)
(Repetition)
□ □
10. Circle the way your teacher usually use when complimenting on your good
performance in speaking lessons. The, put a tick (√) in the box next to the way you
prefer.
a. Only one word (good, well-done, excellent, perfect, etc.) ‫ٱ‬
b. Phrases (more than exact, good job, etc.) ‫ٱ‬
c. Full sentences (You are excellent! You did it very well!, etc.) ‫ٱ‬
================== ====== === === ===
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE!
96
APPENDIX 1C
PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT DÀNH CHO HỌC SINH
Tôi là sinh viên năm thứ 4, khoa Sư Phạm Tiếng Anh, trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ,
Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội. Hiện tại, tôi đang thực hiện đề tài khóa luận tốt nghiệp hệ Cử
nhân ngoại ngữ mang tên: “Việc giáo viên nhận xét ngay lập tức bằng lời trong giờ học nói
Tiếng Anh của lớp 11, trường PTTH Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm, Hà Nội”. Phiếu khảo sát này
nhằm thu thập số liệu cho khóa luận trên; do đó, sự đóng góp của các em trong việc hoàn
thành bản khảo sát này là rất đáng được hoan nghênh và trân trọng. Tôi xin đảm bảo mọi
thông tin cá nhân cũng như nội dung câu trả lời của các em sẽ được giữ bí mật và không bị
sử dụng cho bất kỳ mục đích nào khác.
Chân thành cảm ơn!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Họ tên:............................................................
Lớp:........................
I/ Cách nhìn nhận của học sinh về việc giáo viên nhận xét ngay bằng lời nói.
1. Giáo viên của em có thưòng nhận xét ngay bằng lời trong giờ học môn nói
không? Khoanh vào mức độ mà em chọn.
(Không bao giờ) 1: ... 2: ... 3: ... 4: ... 5: ... (Luôn luôn)
2. Em đánh giá thế nào về tầm quan trọng của việc giáo viên nhận xét ngay bằng
lời nói trong giờ học nói Tiếng Anh? Khoanh tròn vào 1 trong các mức độ dưới đây.
(Không quan trọng) 1: ... 2: ... 3: ... 4: ... 5: ... (Rất quan trọng)
3. Theo em, ưu điểm của việc giáo viên nhận xét ngay lập tức bằng lời trong giờ
học môn nói là gì? Em có thể chọn nhiều hơn 1 đáp án.
a. Giáo viên nhận xét kịp lúc học sinh cần khuyến khích hoặc giúp đỡ.
b. Học sinh có thể sửa lỗi ngay sau khi mắc lỗi nên sẽ dễ nhớ và nhớ lâu hơn.
c. Khi đang thể hiện tốt mà được khen kịp thời, học sinh thấy có hứng thú học hơn.
d. Cách nhận xét này làm tăng sự giao tiếp giữa giáo viên và học sinh trong giờ học.
e. Học sinh có cảm giác rằng lời nói của họ được giáo viên lắng nghe, theo dõi.
f. Ý kiến khác (Em hãy nêu rõ) ……………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………
97
4. Em hãy khoanh tròn vào mức độ mà em mong muốn được nghe giáo viên nhận
xét ngay khi em phát biểu.
(Không muốn) 1: ... 2: ... 3: ... 4: ... 5: ... (Rất muốn)
Ý kiến khác: (Em hãy nêu cụ thể)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Trong giờ học môn nói, khi nào thì em thích nghe nhận xét ngay lập tức từ giáo
viên?
a. Khi em thể hiện tốt b. Khi em thể hiện chưa tốt c. Cả hai
II/ Nội dung trong lời nhận xét ngay của giáo viên
6. Trong giờ học môn nói, em thấy giáo viên tập trung nhận xét và sửa ngay loại lỗi
nào trong các loại lỗi sau:
a. Lỗi về hình thức (Ngữ pháp, Từ vựng, Phát âm)
b. Lỗi về ngh ĩa (Ý, cách sắp xếp ý, lôgic giữa các ý)
7. Đánh dấu tích (٧) vào các ô dưới đây để thể hiện mức độ thưòng xuyên về nội
dung mà cô giáo hay sửta lỗi cho các em.
Loại lỗi Tần suất sử dụng

Rất thường Thỉnh Đôi khi Hiếm khi Không
xuyên thoảng bao giờ
Lỗi về Ngũ pháp
hình thức
Từ vựng
Ngữ âm
Lỗi về Ý
nghĩa
Cách tổ chức
các ý
Lôgic giữa các
ý
9. Khoanh tròn vào cách mà giáo viên của em thường khen khi em thể hiên tốt.
Sau đó, đánh dấu tích (٧) vào ô bên cạnh cách mà em thích được cô giáo khen.
a. Em thông minh lắm! / Em học rất tốt! ‫ٱ‬
b. Em rất cố gắng! / Em đã nỗ lực rất nhiều! ‫ٱ‬
c. Ý kiến khác: (Em hãy nêu cụ thể)
98
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
II. Cách nhận xét ngay bằng lời của giáo viên
10. Giả sử em nói một câu sai: “I must to go now.”, giáo viên của em sẽ sửa lỗi
theo cách nào trong số các cách sau đây? Em đánh dấu tích (√) vào 1 trong số các
ô vuông trong cột thứ 3. Sau đó, em hãy đánh giá mức độ hiệu quả của các cách
sửa lỗi dưới đây bằng cách đánh số 1,2,3,4 hoặc 5 trong cột thứ 4.
(1=không hiệu quả; 2= khá hiệu quả; 3= bình thường; 4= hiệu quả; 5= cực kỳ
hiệu quả)
Cách mà giáo
Mức độ hiệu
STT Các cách sửa lỗi viên của em
quả
dùng là...
1. “À, uhm. I must go now”
□ □
2. “Không. Em phải nói là: I must go now.”
□ □
3. “Ồ, must là một động từ khuyết thiếu, nên tất
cả các động từ theo sau nó phải để ở dạng...” □ □
4. “I must to go là gì vậy em?”
□ □
5. “ must có phải là một động từ khuyết thiếu
không?” □ □
6. “must to go?” (+ lên giọng)
□ □
11. Khoanh tròn vào cách mà giáo viên của em thường khen khi em thể hiên
tốt. Sau đó, đánh dấu tích (٧) vào ô bên cạnh cách mà em thích được cô giáo khen.
a. Chỉ một từ ( Tốt, Giỏi,...) □

b. Cụm từ ( Làm rất tốt, Có tiến bộ, ...) □
c. Câu đầy đủ ( Emkhá lắm! Đúng rồi, cứ như thế là tốt đấy!, ...) □
= = = = = = = == = = = = = = = == = = == = = == = =
CẢM ƠN EM VÌ ĐÃ HOÀN THÀNH XONG PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT NÀY!
99
APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONS FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Appendix 2A: Interview Questions for Teachers
Appendix 2B: Interview Questions for Students
Both interview questions for teachers and students are originally in

Vietnamese, the English versions only serves as a means to help follow the
thesis
100
APPENDIX 2A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR TEACHERS
1. Why do you think teachers’ immediate oral feedback really help out
just in time students need helps or encouragement?
2. Are there many possibilities for teachers to forget students’ mistakes if
they leave it until students finish speaking? Why so?
3. Could you tell me the reasons why you tend to give immediate oral
feedback on your students’ good performance/ bad performance?
4. Why do you think teachers’ immediate corrective feedback should
focus on students’ mistakes on form/ meaning?
5. Could you clarify the reasons why most of the teachers put focus on
correcting students’ grammatical mistakes?
6. Could you tell me the reasons why some of the teachers correct
students’ mistakes on ideas more frequently than their mistakes on
organization of ideas or logic of ideas?
7. Why do you prefer giving immediate positive feedback on your
students’ effort/ students’ ability when they perform well in the
lessons?
8. Are there any advantages of the way that teachers only say “Good,
thank you!” to comment on students’ good performance?
9. Why do you usually use recasts and repetition to correct students’
mistakes?
10. Could you tell more about other types of immediate corrective
feedback? Eliciation, for example?
11. Do you think of any disadvantages of and clarification requests in
correcting students’ mistakes?
101
APPENDIX 2B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS
1.
 Can you tell me the reason why really want to receive immediate oral
feed back from your teachers? (For those who want.)
 Can you tell me the reason why you do not really want/ do not want
your teacher’ immediate oral feedback at all? (For those who do not
want)
2. Why do you want to receive your teachers’ immediate feedback on
your good performance/ bad performance?
3. When performing well, why do you prefer being complimented on your
effort/ your ability? In your opinion, are there any advantages and
disadvantages of these two ways?
4. Why do you like it when your teacher compliment on your good
performance just by saying “Good, thank you!”? Are there any
advantages of this way?
5. In your opinion, why do you find the second way (explicit correction)
and the third way (elicitation)of giving corrective feedback the most
effective?
6. Are there any disadvantages of the first (recasts) and the last way
(repetition)of corrective feedback given in the questionnaire?
7. Among teachers’ positive feedback of one word, phrase and full
sentence, which one you like best? Why?
102
APPENDIX 3 & 4: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
APPENDIX 3: TEACHERS” INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Appendix 3A: Transcript of Interview with Teacher 1

Appendix 3B: Transcript of Interview with Teacher 2
APPENDIX 4: STUDENTS” INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Appendix 4A: Transcript of Interview with Student 1

Appendix 4B Transcript of Interview with Student 2
Appendix 4C Transcript of Interview with Student 3
103
APPENDIX 3A
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER 1
Int: Em chào cô ạ! Em muốn hỏi cô một số thông tin liên quan đến
Questionnaire mà em đã gửi cô hôm trước, cô ạ.
T1: Rồi, em cứ hỏi đi.
Int: Vâng ạ. Thưa cô, cô có thể cho em biết tại sao cô cho rằng việc giáo
viên đưa ra nhận xét ngay lập tức lại có ý nghĩa trong việc giúp đỡ hay
động viên học sinh đúng lúc mà các em cần?
T1: À, lý do nằm ở chỗ khi học sinh đứng lên phát biểu trong giờ nói, các em
thường run, lúng túng, thiếu tự tin. Trong lúc như thế, nếu giáo viên có
thể kịp thời đưa ra cho các em một sự gợi ý, hay một lời động viên thì
rất tốt. Các em sẽ cảm thấy tự tin hơn nhiều. Thực tế là như vậy.
Int: Vâng, thưa cô, có nhiều ý kiến cho rằng nếu giáo viên đưa ra lời nhận
xét ngay lập tức thì có thể tránh được việc giáo viên quên đi một số lỗi
của học sinh. Điều này có thường xảy ra không ạ? Tại sao lại thế ạ?
T1: Uhm...Thật ra là nếu không nhận xét luôn thì nhiều khi giáo viên cũng
quên đi điểm nọ, điểm kia. Nhưng theo cô thì đây cũng không nên là lý
do khiến cách nhận xét này đuợc sử dụng nhiều như vậy. Bởi vì, nếu
giáo viên sợ quên thì có thể take note lại các lỗi lẫn ưu điểm của em học
sinh đó. Như thế thì không thể quên đuợc.
Int: Vâng. Uhm..Thưa cô, cô có thể giải thích lý do vì sao mà cô hay tập trung
nhận xét và sủa lỗi cho học sinh ngay khi các em mắc lỗi?
T1: Trong giờ nói, nếu em đã từng dự giờ thì em sẽ thấy, học sinh mắc vô
cùng nhiều lỗi. Có những lỗi mới, có những lỗi lặp đi lặp lại và rất cần
thiết phải nhận xét để học sinh sửa. Lần này nhận xét chưa sử được, lần
104
sau tiếp tục lưu ý các em. Nhiều khi các em cũng không quan tâm lắm
đâu em ạ, nhưng nếu mình cứ nhắc nhiều, thì kiểu gì các em cũng phải
để tâm đến mà sửa. Còn vì sao nên nhận xét ngay, thì như lý do nêu
trong Questionnaire của em đấy, nhắc luôn thì các em dễ nhớ, dễ sửa.
Int: Vâng. Thưa cô, về nội dung của sửa lỗi, vì sao cô nghĩ rằng giáo viên
nên tập trung sửa lỗi về nghĩa hơn là lỗi về ngữ pháp, từ vựng và phát
âm?
T1: Em học về ngôn ngữ đúng không, vậy chắc em cũng hiểu ró một điều là
người ta luôn luôn nói trong một văn cảnh nhất định nào đó. Vậy nên dù
là người nói có phát âm sai một tí, hay ngữ pháp có sai một tí thì người
khác vẫn hiểu được. Còn nếu như ý của em lằng nhằng, khó hiểu thì
không được rồi. Vậy nên cái lỗi về nghĩa là cái lỗi rất quan trọng, phải
sửa cho các em.
Int: Vâng, bây giờ xét trong phạm vi hẹp hơn giữa các lỗi về ngữ pháp, từ
vựng và ngữ âm...em thấy lỗi ngữ pháp được chú trọng hơn cả. Vì sao
vậy, thưa cô?
T1: Ờ thì rõ ràng là mọi kỹ năng muốn được hình thành đều phải dựa trên
nền tảng là ngữ pháp. Trong kỹ năng nói cũng vậy, muốn nói được một
câu thì trước hết phải biết cách tổ chức câu thế nào, sử dụng giới từ,
quán từ ra làm sao, vân vân
Int: Vâng ạ, em đã hiểu. Uhm...Còn về các lỗi về nghĩa, cô có thể giải thích
giúp em lý do vì sao giáo viên thường tập trung sửa lỗi về ý của học sinh
hơn là lỗi các em mắc phải trong việc tổ chức ý trong bài nói hay là
lôgic giữa các ý?
T1: Thí cái này mắc nhiều hơn, em.
105
Int: Thế ạ?! Còn...Vậy thưa cô, khi thấy học sinh nói tốt hay trước bất cứ
một thể hiện tốt nào của các em , cô hay khen về sự cố gắng của các em?
Vậy thì so với việc khen học sinh về khả năng sẵn có của học sinh, điều
này có gì hơn ạ?
T1: Hơn chứ em. Em thấy nhé, rõ ràng là trong khi khả năng sẵn có là cái
thường bị giới hạn thì sự nỗ lực, sự cố gắng là cái dẻo dai hơn. Vì vậy
tập trung khen ngợi học sinh về nỗ lực của các em là cách khuyến khích
các em không ngừng cố gắng. Cá nhân cô thì cô nghĩ là giáo viên nên
dùng cách này hơn.
Int: Thưa cô, em để ý thấy là trong giờ học môn nói, khi học sinh nói tốt,
giáo viên rất hay khen là “Good! Thank you”, “Very good!” hay những
câu tương tự như vậy. Theo cô, ưu điểm của việc khen học sinh theo
cách này là gì ạ?
T1: Đúng ra là sẽ rất lý tưởng nếu như có thể chỉ ra cho các em cạn kẽ, các
em sai chỗ nào, sửa ra làm sao, rồi thì các em đúng chỗ nào hay vì sao
lại được khen, nhưng vì thời gian cho một tiết học và vô cùng hạn chế
nên nhiều khi mình phải tối giản những thứ kém quan trọng hơn. Nhất là
khi lời nhận xét thế này cũng có tác động tích cực nhất định tới học sinh
rồi.
Int: Vâng, em cũng hiểu điều này ạ. Thưa cô, trong các cách sửa lỗi mà giáo
viên hay áp dụng cho học sinh, em thấy có hai cách phổ biến nhất là
nhắc lại câu của học sinh đồng thời sửa lỗi luôn mà không cần chỉ ra là
học sinh đã sai hoặc nhác lại y nguyên câu sai của học sinh đồng thời
lên giọng. Vậy ưu điểm gì khiến chúng được sử dụng nhiều vậy ạ?
106
T1: Cô nghĩ là hai cách sửa lỗi này, đặc biệt là cách thứ nhất ấy, không mất
nhiều thời gian mà vẫn hiệu quả. Mà vấn đề về thời gian là vấn đề đặc
biệt cần đuợc lưu ý.
Int: Vậy cô có thể nói thêm suy nghĩ của mình về các cách sửa lỗi khác
không ạ? Ví dụ như cách đặt câu hỏi gợi mở cho học sinh chẳng hạn ạ?
T1: Uhm... Cách đấy thì...cũng khá là dễ để học sinh nhận ra và sửa được lỗi.
Tuy nhiên là cũng không nhất thiết lúc nào giáo viên cũng phải gợi mở
theo kiểu nhắc lại kiến thức cũ hoặc các kiến thức liên quan. Nhiều khi
như thế khiến cho học sinh hay chờ đợi sự gợi ý của giáo viên mà lười
suy nghĩ.
Int: Thế còn cách hỏi học sinh các câu như: “Em nói gì?”, hay “Ý em là
....?” thì sao hả cô?
T1: Theo cô thì cách đó ít hoặc không mang lại hiệu quả em ạ. Vì học sinh
khi bị cô giáo nhắc về lỗi là trong tâm lý học sinh đã có ít nhiều xáo trộn
rồi. Thậm chí là với một số em hay lo sợ, ít tự tin thì câu hỏi đại loại như
“What do you mean by...?” khiến các em càng lúc túng hơn. Thậm chí là
các em còn không hiểu giáo viên hỏi câu hỏi đó để làm gì nữa.
Int: Vâng ạ. Em hiểu rồi ạ. Em cảm ơn cô đã giải thích cho em những thắc
mắc trên. Cảm ơn cô đã dành thời gian cho em.
T1: Ừ, không có gì. Mong là những chia sẻ trên giúp đuợc gì đó cho luận
văn của em. Cố gắng nhé!
I: Dạ vâng. Em cảm ơn cô. Em chào cô ạ!
107
APPENDIX 3B
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER 2
Int: Em chào cô ạ! Em muốn hỏi cô một số thông tin liên quan đến
Questionnaire mà em đã gửi cô hôm trước, cô ạ.
T2: Ừ, đư ợc. Em hỏi đi.
Int: Thưa cô, cô có thể cho em biết tại sao cô cho rằng việc giáo viên đưa ra
nhận xét ngay lập tức lại có ý nghĩa trong việc giúp đỡ hay động viên
học sinh đúng lúc mà các em cần?
T2: Thật ra là học sinh trong trường này nói chung và học sinh các lớp cô
dạy nói riêng, các em học tiếng Anh, đặc biệt là học môn nói không
đuợc tốt cho lắm. Nên lúc các em thực hành nói, có gì khó khăn thì mình
nên giúp ngay, sai chỗ nào phải sửa ngay cho các em biết, coi như
là...giải quyết luôn. Mà đặc biệt là nếu các em có nói tốt thì mình càng
phải khen ngay để động viên các em nói tiếp. Thể em ạ.
Int: Dạ vâng. uhm...Có nhiều ý kiến cho rằng một trong những ưu điểm của
việc giáo viên đưa ra lời nhận xét ngay lập tức đó là tránh việc giáo viên
quên đi một số lỗi của học sinh. Điều này xảy ra nhiều không ạ? Tại sao
lại thế ạ?
T2: À, điều này cũng phổ biến đấy em ạ. Vì thường là trong giờ học, giáo
viên ngoài viên chú ý lắng nghe xem học sinh của mình đang nói gì, nói
thê nào thì còn phải để ý tới những việc khác ví dụ như trật tự lớp,
uh...luôn phải để ý trật tự lớp, vì cô giáo mà không để ý một cái là học
sinh nói chuyện ngay. Thế nên là giáo viên cũng không thể tập trung
hoàn toàn rồi cũng không nhớ lâu được. Bản thân cô nhiều khi cũng
quên đi chứ. Nói chung là cứ đúng chỗ nào, sai chỗ nào thì nhận xét
luôn.
108
Int: Thưa cô, cô có thể giải thích lý do vì sao mà cô hay tập trung nhận xét
khi học sinh của mình thể hiện tốt trong giờ học nói?
T2: Nghe thì có vẻ mâu thuẫn nhưng mà cũng vì phần lớn học sinh nói
không tốt, nên các em ngại nói. Vì vậy một lời khen kịp thời của giáo
viên là rất cần thiết, ngay cả khi học sinh đó có khi chưa thực sự xứng
đáng với sự khen ngợi đó. Mà suy cho cùng thì cái mục đích cốt lõi nhất
của giờ học nói là làm sao để học sinh bật ra được một câu, vậy thì khi
các em nói được một câu, dù đúng dù sai thì cũng đáng được khích lệ
rồi.
Int: Vâng, em hiểu rồi ạ. Thưa cô, về nội dung của sửa lỗi, vì sao cô nghĩ
rằng giáo viên nên tập trung sửa lỗi về ngữ pháp, từ vựng và phát âm
hơn là lỗi về nghĩa?
T2: À, theo cô thì việc chú trọng đến các lỗi ngữ pháp và từ vựng mà học
sinh mắc phải giúp ích rất nhiều không chỉ cho việc học kỹ năng nói mà
còn cho các kỹ năng khác. Mà đặc biệt là ngữ pháp, từ vựng và cả ngữ
âm nữa đều là những nội dung chủ yếu có trong tất cả các bài thi tiếng
Anh.
Int: Vâng, bây giờ xét trong một phạm vi hẹp hơn giữa các lỗi về ngữ pháp,
từ vựng và ngữ âm thì em thấy nhiều ý kiến cho rằng, lỗi ngữ pháp là
được chú trong hơn cả. Vì sao vậy, thưa cô?
T2: Như đã trả lời ở câu hỏi trên, ngữ pháp là nội dung quan trong nhất vì
ba phần tư của bài thi, bài kiểm tra là liên quan đến nó, chỉ có một ít là
về ngữ âm và từ vựng. Vậy thì, muốn nói tốt cũng cần ngữ pháp tốt,
muốn thi đạt kết quả cao cũng cần ngữ pháp tốt. Như thế thì rõ ràng là
việc tập trung vào ngữ pháp của học sinh như một mũi tên trúng hai đích
rồi.
109
Int: Dạ vâng, em hiểu rồi ạ.Uhm...Còn trong ba loại lỗi về nghĩ, vì sao giáo
viên thường tập trung sửa lỗi về ý hơn là lỗi các em mắc phải trong việc
tổ chức ý trong bài nói hay là lôgic giữa các ý?Cô có thể giải thích giúp
em không ạ?
T2: Uhm... Phần lớn là ý của các em chưa tốt, chứ còn về cách sắp xếp ý hay
sự lôgic giữa các ý thì không thấy vấn đề gì nhiều. Mà thật ra là mỗi lần
nói, các em cũng chỉ nói vài câu nên cũng không có nhiều cơ hội để phát
hiện vá sửa hai loại lỗi này.
Int: Vậy ạ?! Vâng. Uhm...vậy còn trong việc khen ngợi, động viên học sinh
khi các em nói tốt ấy ạ. Cô có nói rằng cô thích và hay dùng cách khen
học sinh về năng lực của các em hơn là về sự cố gắng, nỗ lực của các
em? Lý do cho điều này là gì ạ?
T2: À, khi các em nói tốt ấy, cô cũng hay khen theo kiểu “Em khá lắm!” hay
“Em nói tốt đấy!” và nói cũng hơi hài hước một chút rồi thì...cũng thấy
học sinh tỏ ra hứng thú. Nói chung là trong trường hợp của cô, áp dụng
cho các học sinh mà cô dạy thì điều này chút hài hước này làm giảm
không khí trầm trầm trong giờ nói.
Int: Thưa cô, trên thực tế thì khi học sinh nói tốt, giáo viên rất hay khen là
“Good! Thank you”, “Very good!” hay những câu tương tự như vậy. Vì
sao cách này lại đuợc dùng phổ biến như vậy ạ?
T2: Ờ thì, cách này nhanh gọn mà vẫn khiến học sinh phấn khởi.
Int: Vâng, em cũng hiểu điều này ạ. Thưa cô, trong các cách sửa lỗi mà giáo
viên hay áp dụng cho học sinh, em thấy có hai cách phổ biến nhất là
nhắc lại câu của học sinh đồng thời sửa lỗi luôn mà không cần chỉ ra là
học sinh đã sai hoặc nhác lại y nguyên câu sai của học sinh đồng thời
lên giọng. Vậy theo cô thì ưu điểm của hai cách này là gì ạ?
110
T2: Sửa lỗi theo hai cách này thì nhanh gọn em ạ. Mà học sinh cũng quen rồi
nên các em cũng dễ nhận ra là mình đang được cô giáo sửa lỗi.
Int: Vậy cô có thể nói thêm suy nghĩ của mình về các cách sửa lỗi khác
không ạ? Ví dụ như cách đặt câu hỏi gợi mở cho học sinh?
T2: Cách đấy thì cô cũng hay dùng. Nói chung là cũng khá hiệu quả. Trừ khi
học sinh kém nhạy bén quá thì mình phải đưa ra đáp án đúng luôn em ạ.
Int: Vậy nếu giáo viên sử lỗi bằn cách hỏi học sinh các câu như: “Em nói
gì?”, hay “Ý em là ....?” thì sao ạ?
T2: Cách này dễ mang lại cho các em cảm giác là giáo viên đang hỏi kiểu
thách thức hay chất vấn mình, dễ gây cho các em tâm lý không tốt.
Int: Vâng. Vậy là em đã rõ, và cũng không cón gì thắc mắc nữa. Em cảm ơn
cô vì đã dành thời gian cho em ạ.
T2: Ừ, có gì cần cứ hỏi thêm em nhé.
Int: Vâng, em cảm ơn cô. Em chào cô ạ.
111
APPENDIX 4A
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH STUDENT 1
Int: Chào em, chị muốn hỏi em một chút liên quan đến nội dung của phiếu
điều tra mà chị phát cho em hôm trước.
S1: Vâng.
Int: Ừm...Trước hết, em có thể nói cho chị lý do vì sao em rất muốn được
giáo viên nhận xét bằng lời ngay khi em nói tốt cũng như khi chưa tốt?
S1: Vâng. Em thì em thấy thích nhất khi mà mình nói sai cái gì thì được cô
giáo sửa cho ngay. Vì có khi, trong một lượt nói của mình, nếu sai mà
không được sửa ngay thì có thể là mình dùng đi dùng lại một cấu trúc
câu sai, một từ sai hay phát âm sai trong suốt bài nói đó. Rồi nó dễ quen
miệng đi, đến khi được cô giáo sửa thì có khi là cũng không nhớ cái
đúng bằng nhớ cái sai chị ạ.
Int: Thế vì sao em lại muốn được cô giáo nhận xét, sửa lỗi khi em nói chưa
tốt hơn là được cô giáo khen khi em nói tốt? Lý do là gì, em?
S1: Em thấy, nếu làm tốt rồi thì có khen hay không cũng không làm mình
kém đi. Nhưng nếu lỗi sai mà không được sửa thì là sẽ kém đi ngay.
Int: Thế...khi được cô khen thì em thích được khen về khả năng hay là sự cố
gắng nỗ lực của em? Và em nghĩ gì về hai cách khen đó?
S1: Em thấy các cô hay khen học sinh về sự cố gắng. Nhưng nó cú chung
chung kiểu gì ấy ạ. Vì sự cố gắng thì ai cũng có thể cố được nhưng mà
nói về khả năng thì không phải ai cũng có, và có như nhau. Nên em thấy,
khen học sinh theo khả năng của từng người thì sẽ hay hơn.
112
Int: Qua phiếu điều tra thì chị thấy, đa số các em đều nghĩ việc cô giáo nhận
xét là “Good” hay “very good”, hay tương tự như vậy là hợp lý. Em
nghĩ gì về cách khen này của cô giáo? Có ưu điểm gì không em?
S1: Cũng bình thường mà chị. Khen thì chỉ cần khen như thế là bọn em biết
rồi. Cũng không cần phải cầu kì lắm.
S1: Int: Uhm...rồi. Chị còn muốn hỏi thêm nữa là, theo em thì vì sao học
sinh thường thấy cách sửa lỗi thứ hai (explicit correction) và thứ ba
(elicitation) trong số sáu cách sửa lỗi chị đề xuất là hiệu quả nhất?
S1: Với cách sửa lỗi thứ ba thì chúng em thấy dễ hiểu nhất. Bằng cách chỉ ra
cặn kẽ cho chúng em về lỗi và gợi ý cách sửa lỗi thì chúng em thấy thích
hơn. Dễ hiểu và cũng dễ nhớ hơn. Còn cách thứ hai thì cũng hay vì giáo
viên trực tiếp sửa lỗi luôn, vì thế mà chúng em cũng dễ nhận biết lỗi của
mình.
Int: Uh, chị cũng thấy vậy đấy. Vậy em nghĩ gì về cách sửa lỗi số một
(recast) và cách sửa lỗi cuối cùng (repetition)? Hai cách này có điểm
mạnh và yếu gì, em có thể nói rõ hơn về điều này không?
S1: Theo em thì hai cách này ngắn gọn, nhưng lại do.... à....vì khi giáo viên
nói thế, học sinh không chắc chắn đuợc là cô đang nhắc mình sửa lỗi sai
hay là chỉ đơn thuần là yêu cầu học sinh nhắc lại điều mà cô giáo chưa
nghe. Nếu như vậy, rõ ràng là mất thời gian hơn các lời nhận xét khác.
Int: Ừ. chị hiểu rồi. Câu cuối cùng nhé. Cá nhân em thì em thích cô giáo
nhận xét bằng một từ, một cụn từ hay là một câu đầy đủ? Vì sao?
S1: Em nghĩ là tuỳ chị ạ. Nhưng cái nào cần nói nhiều thì dùng câu hoàn
chinh, còn nếu không, chỉ khen bình thường thôi thì cũng không cần cầu
kì đâu.
113
Int: Rồi. Cảm ơn em nhiều nhé. Chúc em học tốt.
S1: Vâng ạ. Em chào chị.
Int: Ừ. Chào em.
114
APPENDIX 4B
Int: Chào em, chị muốn hỏi em thêm về nội dung của phiếu điều tra cho luận
văn của chị. Được không em?
S2: Vâng, được ạ.
Int: Ừ. Trước tiên, chị muốn hỏi em lý do vì sao mà em muốn được giáo viên
nhận xét ngay khi em mắc lỗi hay là nói tốt câu gì đó?
S2: Thì như thế để chỉ cho mình thấy rõ luôn mà chị. Không thì lúc sau,
nhận xét cũng không hiệu quả mấy.
Int: Ừm... Vậy em có nói là em muốn được cô giáo sửa lỗi hơn là khen. Lý do
là gì vậy em?
S2: Em thấy cái sai thì nguy hiểm hơn. Nếu không được sửa thì cứ thế sai
mãi. Còn nếu mà đúng, được khen thì cũng thích, nhưng không được
khen thì cũng không quan trọng lắm. Tính em cũng không hay thích
được khen. Cứ phải chê nhiều thì mới tiến bộ được. (Cuời). Em nghĩ thế.
Int: Ừm...Chị hiểu. Vậy nếu nhé...Nếu được cô giáo khen thì em thích đựợc
khen về khả năng hay là khen về sự cố gắng của em? Vì sao?
S2: Khen về sự cố gắng thì vẫn hay hơn chị ạ. Vì đâu có phải ai cũng giỏi
đâu. Nếu mình để ý học và cố gắng thì thế là đã tốt rồi.
Int: Vậy em nghĩ sao về việc đa số giáo viên chỉ khen là “Good”, “Very
good”. Em nghĩ gì về cách nhận xét đó.
S2: Chỉ cần thế thôi là được rồi ạ. Em cũng không thích khen nhiều. Vì thực
ra mình còn nhiều điểm chưa tốt hơn.
115
Int: Rồi. Vậy theo em thì.. ở câu số 9 trong bản điều tra ấy, theo em thì lý do
nào khiến đa phần học sinh cho rằng cách sửa lỗi thứ hai (explicit
correction) và cách thứ ba (elicitation) là hiệu quả nhất?
S2: Em cũng không biết được. Nhưng cảm giác là vậy chị ạ. Những cách
còn lại, khi cô giáo nhận xét, bọn em thấy khó nhận ra lỗi lắm, mà cũng
thấy khó sửa. Hai cách này thì đỡ hơn, chị ạ.
Int: Ok. Vậy còn cách số một (recast) và cách cuối cùng (repetition)...Em
nghĩ gì về hai cách này?
S2: Nghĩ gì ấy ạ?... Ừm...Em thấy cô giáo cũng hay dùng lắm, nhưng mà
nhiều khi nó không rõ. Có lúc em không biết là cô đang sửa.
Int: Vậy à?! Bây giờ là câu cuối cùng nhé. Khi cô giáo khen thì em thích cô
chỉ nói ngắn gọn bằng một từ, một cụm từ hay là một câu hoàn chỉnh?
S2: Bằng một cụm từ hay một tù là em thấy được rồi. Học sinh cũng thấy
phấn khởi. Mà hơn nữa, phải đẻ dành thời gian cho các hoạt dộng khác
nữa mà chị.
Int: Ừm...Chị hiểu rồi. Cảm ơn em nhiều nhé.
S2: Không có gì đâu ạ. Chào chị.
Int: Ừ. Chào em.
116
APPENDIX 4C
Int: Chào em, chị muốn hỏi em thêm một chút liên quan đến phiếu điều tra
mà hôm trước chị có nhờ em làm đấy.
S3: Vâng. Chị cần hởi gì thì cứ hỏi. Cái nào em trả lời đuợc thì em trả lời.
Không thì thôi chị nhé.
Int: Ok em. Vậy...câu đầu tiên nhé. Em có thể cho chị biết lý do dẫn đến việc
em không muốn nghe cô giáo nhận xét trong giờ học môn nói không?
S3: Thực ra là cũng không hẳn thế đâu chị ạ. Lúc đầu thì khi em nói sai cái
gì thì cô giáo cố gắng sửa cho em, nhưng dần dần cô cũng chán sửa hay
sao ấy...em cũng không biết...vì em học kém mà, lại không tiến bộ. Có
lúc cô còn tỏ ra bực mình nữa ấy chứ. Rồi vì thế mà lúc em bị gọi lên
nói, khi mắc lỗi, cô giáo càng nhận xét em càng thấy sao ấy, không có
tác dụng gì cả. Mà có khi nó còn khiến em không thể nói tiếp được nữa.
Kiểu gì ấy chị ạ.”
Int: Thế điều gì khiến em thích được cô giáo khen khi em nói tốt hơn là được
cô giáo sửa lỗi cho em khi em nói chưa tốt.
S3: (Cười) Em cũng không biết chị ạ. Nhưng chắc tại tính em nó thế. Lúc
được khen trước lớp thì cũng thấy vui lắm chị ạ. Mà với lại, tại vì em
hay bị cô giáo chê, ít đuợc cô khen nên em mới thích thế. (Cười)
Int: Vậy à?! Vậy em cố gắng là được cô khen mà. Thế...khi được cô khen thì
em thích được khen về khả năng hay là sự cố gắng nỗ lực của em trong
môn học này? Và em nghĩ gì về hai cách khen đó?
S3: Chị ơi, em cũng không rõ lắm. Nhưng thường thì cô giáo em chỉ hay
khen ngắn gọn là “Good!”, “Very good. Thank you. Sit down, please.”
117
thôi ạ. Nhưng nếu...giữa hai loại kia thì em vẫn thích được cô giáo khen
về sự cố gắng của em hơn. Vì em học không giỏi, mà cô chỉ khen bằng
kiểu kia thì chắc là em không bao giờ được khen mất.
Int: Qua phiếu điều tra thì chị thấy, đa số các em đều nghĩ việc cô giáo nhận
xét là “Good” hay “very good”, hay tương tự như vậy là hợp lý. Em
nghĩ gì về cách khen này của cô giáo? Có ưu điểm gì không em?
S3: Em nghĩ là nếu nói đuợc nhiều thì cũng tốt. Nhưng vì cũng không có
nhiều thời gian nên chỉ cần như thế à đuợc rồi chị ạ
Int: Uhm...rồi. Chị còn muốn hỏi thêm nữa là, theo em thì vì sao học sinh
thường thấy cách sửa lỗi thứ hai (explicit correction) và thứ ba
(elicitation) trong số sáu cách sửa lỗi chị đề xuất là hiệu quả nhất?
S3: Em thấy là khi được sửa lỗi bằng hai cách này, học sinh sẽ dễ biết được
lỗi sai của mình, và cách sử đồng thời luôn.
Int: Vậy thế còn cách sửa lỗi số một (recast) và cách sửa lỗi thứ cuối cùng
thì sao em? Hai cách này có điểm mạnh và yếu gì, em có thể nói rõ hơn
về điều này không?
S3: Cách đầu tiên ấy ạ, học sinh có thể không nhận ra là mình mắc lỗi và đã
đuợc sửa lỗi rồi. Như thế thì không hiệu quả. Còn cách thứ ba thì...khi
cô giáo nhắc lại nhiều lần y nguyên cái lỗi sai đấy, em nghĩ là học sinh
rồi sẽ nhớ lỗi sai hơn là cách sửa đúng như thế nào.
Int: Ừ. chị hiểu rồi. Câu cuối cùng nhé. Cá nhân em thì em thích cô giáo
nhận xét bằng một từ, một cụn từ hay là một câu đầy đủ? Vì sao?
S3: Chỉ cần nói bằng một từ hay cụm từ, bọn em cũng hiểu mà.
Int: Ok. Đã xong. Chị cảm ơn em nhiều nhé. Em cố gắng lên, đừng ngại học
tiếng Anh nhé.
118
S3: (Cười) Vâng. Em cũng cố xem sao. Em chào chị.
Int: Ừ. Chào em.
119
APPENDIX 5: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION CHECKLIST
School:
Class:
Lesson:
Date:
Total Delayed Oral immediate feedback

number feedback
of oral Corrective Positive
feedback
Contents
turns
Types Contents Types
Mistakes on Mistake on
form meaning
Grammar
Vocabualry
Pronunciation
Ideas
Ideas Orgs
Logic of ideas
Recats
correction
Explicit
Elicitation
request
Clarification
cues
Mtalinguitic
Repetition
Others
(Good! One
Effort Ability Phrase Sentence
Exellent, word
etc.)
Number
of turns
120
121
APPENDIX 6: RESULTS OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
School: Nguyen Binh Khiem High School
Class: 11A7
Lesson: Unit 14- Recreation/ Speaking
Date: March 18, 2010
Total Delayed Oral immediate feedback ( 52 turns)

number feedback
of oral Corrective (32) Positive (20)
feedback
Contents
turns
Types Contents Types
Mistakes on Mistake on
form (27) meaning (5)
56
Grammar
Vocabualry
Pronunciation
Ideas
Ideas Orgs
Logic of ideas
Recats
correction
Explicit
Elicitation
request
Clarification
cues
Mtalinguitic
Repetition
Others
(Good! One
Effort Ability Phrase Sentence
Exellent, word
etc.)
Number
of turns 4
12 5 10 3 0 2
5 0 15
122
12 5 2 2 3 8
12 5 3
123

Teachers' Immediate Oral Feedback in Speaking Lessons For 11th-Form Students - Le Thi Hong Phuc - Qh.12.e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teachers' Immediate Oral Feedback in Speaking Lessons For 11th-Form Students - Le Thi Hong Phuc - Qh.12.e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

LÊ THỊ HỒNG PHÚC

TEACHERS’ IMMEDIATE ORAL FEEDBACK

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

Hanoi, May 2010

LÊ THỊ HỒNG PHÚC

TEACHERS’ IMMEDIATE ORAL FEEDBACK

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

SUPERVISOR: CAO THUY HONG, M.A.

Hanoi, May 2010

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

Lê Thị Hồng Phúc

May 4th, 2010

First of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude and

My deep appreciation also goes to the teachers of the Faculty of English

I am grateful to the teachers and students in Nguyen Binh Khiem High

I would also like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the authors of the

My sincere thanks also go to all of my readers for their constructive

I.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study...........................................12

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

II.1. Overview of speaking skill........................................................................16

III.1. Participants and participant selection method.......................................38

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

V.1. Summary ..................................................................................................80

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES & ABBREVIATIONS

List of Tables Page

Table 1: Classes distributed with survey questionnaires..................39

Table 2: Structure of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires...........41

Table 3: Structure of teachers’ and students’ interview...................42

Table 4: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective and

Figure 1: Feedback types classified by Brookhart (1998)................22

Figure 2: Feedback types classified by Crane (2006)......................22

Figure 3: Importance of teachers’ immediate oral feedback

Figure 4: Advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback

in speaking lessons .....................................................…...48

Figure 5: Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback

Figure 6: Students’ desire for teachers’ immediate oral feedback

Figure 7: When teachers want to give immediate feedback..............53

Figure 8: When students want to receive immediate feedback.........53

Figure 9: Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback.......55

Figure 10: Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...........61

Figure 11: Students’ preferences for the contents of

teachers’ immediate positive feedback............................. 62

Figure 12: Teachers’ preferred types of immediate corrective

Figure 13: Students’ ideas about the effectiveness of teachers’ types

Figure 14: Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...............67

Figure 15: Students’ preferences for types of teachers’

immediate positive feedback .............................................. 68

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

I.1. Problem statement and rationale for the study

I.2. Aims and objectives of the study

When conducting this study, the researcher’s primary aim is to obtain a

This study is specially designed to answer four following questions:

(1) What are teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in

(2) What are 11th-form students’ perceptions of teacher’s immediate

(3) What are the contents of immediate oral feedback employed by

(4) What are the types of immediate oral feedback delivered by

I.4. Scope of the study

As opposed to a huge number of studies on corrective feedback and

I.5. Methods of the study

This paper employed both quantitative and qualitative method including