This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
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
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.
Lê Thị Hồng Phúc
May 4th, 2010
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.
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, semistructured 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.
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.184.108.40.206. Contents of immediate corrective feedback.....25 II.220.127.116.11. Contents of immediate positive feedback……27 II.2.2.2. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback.......28 II.18.104.22.168. Types of immediate corrective feedback..........28 II.22.214.171.124 Types of immediate positive feedback...............32 II.2.2.3. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons...............................33 II.126.96.36.199. Teachers’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons........................... .................33 II.188.8.131.52. Students’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons......................................34 II.184.108.40.206. Mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of immediate oral feedback............36
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
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES & ABBREVIATIONS
List of Tables
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4:
Classes distributed with survey questionnaires..................39 Structure of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires...........41 Structure of teachers’ and students’ interview...................42 Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective and positive feedback............................................................... 57
List of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:
Feedback types classified by Brookhart (1998)................22 Feedback types classified by Crane (2006)......................22 Importance of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons.......................................................... 47
Advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons .....................................................…...48
Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons........................................................... 50
Students’ desire for teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons............................................................ 51
Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11:
When teachers want to give immediate feedback..............53 When students want to receive immediate feedback.........53 Contents of teachers’ immediate corrective feedback.......55 Contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...........61 Students’ preferences for the contents of teachers’ immediate positive feedback............................. 62
Teachers’ preferred types of immediate corrective feedback.............................................................................63
Students’ ideas about the effectiveness of teachers’ types 10
of corrective feedback .......................................................65 Figure 14: Figure 15: Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback...............67 Students’ preferences for types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback .............................................. 68
List of Abbreviations CLT: Q: T: S: Int: Communicative Language Teaching Question Teacher Student Interviewer
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 teachinglearning 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 11thform 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.
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 nonverbal 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.
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)
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 accuracybased 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.
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.220.127.116.11. 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.18.104.22.168. 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
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.22.214.171.124. 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.
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) (Adapted from Lyster and Panova, 1998) 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: T: As a child, I live in that house. (grammatical error) Now? (clarification request) SmS: Yeah . . . I lived. (repair) 30
(Adapted from Lyster and Panova, 1998) Further, this type of feedback also seeks the clarification of meaning: S: I want practice today, (grammatical error) T: I’m sorry? (clarification request) (Adapted from Lyster and Panova, 1998) 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.126.96.36.199. 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.”
II.2.2.3. Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons II.188.8.131.52. 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.184.108.40.206. 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.
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.220.127.116.11. 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.
Mismatch can also be found between students and teachers’ perceptions of effectiveness of oral corrective feedback. Specifically, the studentparticipants 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 overcorrecting 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.
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.
The distribution of survey questionnaire to these students can be shown in details in this table below. Group 11CA (gifted group of English ) 11A7 11A8 11CH (gifted group of Chemistry) Number of students 36 35 43 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 semistructured 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, semistructured interview and classroom observation to examine the results.
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 closeended 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.
Range of questions Section Teachers’ questionnaire (Appendix 1A) Q.1 - Q.4 Students’ questionnaire (Appendix 1B) Q.1 - Q.5
1. Teachers/ Students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral feedback 2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback 3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback
Q.5 – Q.7
Q.6 - Q.8
Q.8 & Q.9
Q.9 & Q.10
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
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 openended question; still, open-ended questions were bigger in number. Further details are shown in the following table.
Range of questions Section Teachers’ interview (Appendix 2A) 1. Teachers/ Students’ perceptions of teachers’ immediate oral feedback 2. Contents of teachers’ immediate oral feedback 3. Types of teachers’ immediate oral feedback Q.5 – Q.8 Q.3 & Q.4 Q.1 - Q.4 Students’ interview (Appendix 2B) Q.1 & Q.2
Q.9 – Q.11
Q.5 - Q.7
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,
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
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 notetaking 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.
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.
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 oral feedback in speaking lessons IV.1.1.1. Teachers and students’ perceptions of the importance of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons
70 60 50 40
30 20 10 0 Unim po rta nt 0 0 0
16 .7 0
Q uit e Im po rt a nt
N e utral
Im po rt ant
E xtrem e ly 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 %
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 80
90 65.4 70 40 20.6 40 31 30 8 85
60 40 20 0
Figure 4: Advantages of teachers’ immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons (Question 2, Appendix 1A & Appendix 1B) 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. speaking. E. It makes students feel that they are listened to by teachers while
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-thespot feedback are illustrated in the chart below:
70 60 50 46.3 50 37.2 40 40
30 16.5 20 10 10 0
Never Rarely Som etim es Often Alw ays
Figure 5: Frequency of teachers’ using immediate oral feedback in speaking lessons (Question 3, Appendix 1A & Appendix 1B) 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 neutral want really want
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).
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.
When students perform w ell When students perform badly Both
When performing w ell When performing badly Both
Figure 7: When teachers want to give immediate feedback (Question 4, Appendix 1A)
8: When students want to receive immediate feedback (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.
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.
Mistakes on meaning
Mistakes on form 0 20 40 60
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-
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... Grammar
Very often T S 60 52.7
Usually T S 30 32.8 40 30 20 30 36.6 41.3 10 4.6
Sometimes T S 10 14.5 60 20 60 60 70 42.3 26.4 67.7 31.8 17
Rarely T S 21.1 32.3 22.3 58.2 67
Never T S
Vocabulary Pronunciation 50 Ideas Idea Organizations Logic of ideas
20 10 30
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 textbook. 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 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 0
53.6 40 20 6.5 39.9 40
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.
Figure 11: Students’ preferences for the contents of teachers’ feedback 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 50 40 30 20 10 0
c it pli EX o ati fic ari Cl ta Me st ca Re o ati c it Eli on titi pe Re g lin
45.6 40 30 19.8 20 14.8 10 4.8 0 3 0 12 Teacher Student
Figure 12: Teachers’ preferred types of immediate corrective feedback (Question 8, Appendix 1A & Question 9, Appendix 1B) 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
on cti rr e co
s ue eq nr t
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.
120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Recasts Extremely ef f ectiv e Ef f ectiv e Neutral Quite ef f ectiv e Inef f ectiv e 7.4 9.3 12.2 39.4 31.7 Explicit correction 10 14.2 43.2 22.6 0 Clarif icatio Metalinguis n request tic cue 0 0 11.1 15.3 74.6 2.9 3.4 25 31.4 37.3
Elicitation 42.7 47.4 6.2 3.6 0
Repetition 4.2 29.7 9 23.5 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
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 Phrase One word 0 20 40 % 30 31 10 57 60 60 80
Figure 14: Types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback (Question 9, Appendix 1A & Question 10, Appendix 1B) 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% 40%
Figure 15: Students’ preferences for types of teachers’ immediate positive feedback (Question 10,
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.
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 oral feedback in speaking lessons 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.
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 timeconsuming; it is obvious that the matter of time limit for teachers’ feedback provision once again arises.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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-andcriticism/ 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
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback February 27, 2010, from
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, 2665. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/18/5/1103/
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://eflt.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), 16. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1501722
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
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)
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) 2. 1: … 2: … 3: … 4: … 5: … (Extremely important)
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. lessons. It helps to improve the interaction between teachers and students during
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)
4. a. b. c.
When do you usually give your immediate oral feedback to your students? When students perform well When students perform badly 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 Very often Mistakes on form Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Mistakes on meaning Ideas Idea Organizations Logic of ideas Frequency of teachers’ use Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
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) ..............................................................................................
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. No 1. 2. 3. Types of corrective feedback “Yeah, good. I must go now” (Recasts) “No, I should say I must go now.” (Explicit correction) “Oh, must is a modal auxiliary verb, so any verb coming after it must be…” (Elicitation) “What do you mean by I must to go? (Clarification request) “Do we say must to go?” (Metalinguistic cues) “must to go?” (+ raising tone) (Repetition) I would “…” say
4. 5. 6.
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!
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. lessons. d. e. It helps to improve the interaction between teachers and students during It makes students feel that they are listened to by teachers while speaking. 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)
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. a. When do you want to receive your teacher’s immediate oral feedback? 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 Very often Mistakes on form Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Mistakes on meaning Ideas Idea 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. b. You’ve tried so hard. / You put a lot of effort into it. Frequency of teachers’ use Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
c.Others: (please specify) ............................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................
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) No 1. Types of corrective feedback “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) My teacher Degree of would say “…” effectiveness
□ □ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □ □
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.) b. Phrases (more than exact, good job, etc.) c. Full sentences (You are excellent! You did it very well!, etc.)
ٱ ٱ ٱ
================== ====== === === === THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE!
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) …………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………
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 Rất thường xuyên Lỗi về hình thức Ngũ pháp Từ vựng Ngữ âm Lỗi về nghĩa Ý Cách tổ chức các ý Lôgic giữa các ý Tần suất sử dụng Thỉnh thoảng Đôi khi Hiếm khi Không bao giờ
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)
………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 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. 3. 4. 5. 6. “Không. Em phải nói là: I must go now.” “Ồ, must là một động từ khuyết thiếu, nên tất cả các động từ theo sau nó phải để ở dạng...” “I must to go là gì vậy em?” “ must có phải là một động từ khuyết thiếu không?” “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!
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 (Please turn to the next page)
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?
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
(Please turn to the next page)
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: Int: Rồi, em cứ hỏi đi. 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Thế còn cách hỏi học sinh các câu như: “Em nói gì?”, hay “Ý em là ....?” thì sao hả cô?
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.
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.
Ừ, không có gì. Mong là những chia sẻ trên giúp đuợc gì đó cho luận văn của em. Cố gắng nhé!
Dạ vâng. Em cảm ơn cô. Em chào cô ạ!
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: Int: Ừ, đư ợc. Em hỏi đi. 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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
Ờ thì, cách này nhanh gọn mà vẫn khiến học sinh phấn khởi. 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
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.
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?
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.
Vậy nếu giáo viên sử lỗi bằn cách hỏi học sinh các câu như: “Em nói gì?”, hay “Ý em là ....?” thì sao ạ?
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.
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: Int: Ừ, có gì cần cứ hỏi thêm em nhé. Vâng, em cảm ơn cô. Em chào cô ạ.
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: Int: Vâng. 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.
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?
Cũng bình thường mà chị. Khen thì chỉ cần khen như thế là bọn em biết rồi. Cũng không cần phải cầu kì lắm.
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.
Int: S1: Int:
Rồi. Cảm ơn em nhiều nhé. Chúc em học tốt. Vâng ạ. Em chào chị. Ừ. Chào em.
APPENDIX 4B TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH STUDENT 2 Int: Chào em, chị muốn hỏi em thêm về nội dung của phiếu điều tra cho luận văn của chị. Được không em? S2: Int: Vâng, được ạ. 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.
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?
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.
Ok. Vậy còn cách số một (recast) và cách cuối cùng (repetition)...Em nghĩ gì về hai cách này?
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.
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?
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: S2: Int:
Ừm...Chị hiểu rồi. Cảm ơn em nhiều nhé. Không có gì đâu ạ. Chào chị. Ừ. Chào em.
APPENDIX 4C TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH STUDENT 3 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: Int: Chỉ cần nói bằng một từ hay cụm từ, bọn em cũng hiểu mà. Ok. Đã xong. Chị cảm ơn em nhiều nhé. Em cố gắng lên, đừng ngại học tiếng Anh nhé. 118
(Cười) Vâng. Em cũng cố xem sao. Em chào chị. Ừ. Chào em.
APPENDIX 5: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION CHECKLIST
School: Class: Lesson: Date:
Total Delayed number feedback of oral feedback turns
Oral immediate feedback
Corrective Contents Mistakes on form
Grammar Vocabualry Pronunciation
Mistake on meaning
Ideas Ideas Orgs Logic of ideas Recats Explicit correction
Elicitation Mtalinguitic cues Clarification request Repetition
Others (Good! Effort Ability Exellent, etc.)
Number of turns
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 number feedback of oral feedback turns
Oral immediate feedback ( 52 turns)
Corrective (32) Contents Mistakes on Mistake on form (27) meaning (5)
Grammar Vocabualry Pronunciation Ideas Ideas Orgs Logic of ideas Recats Explicit correction
Elicitation Mtalinguitic cues Clarification request Repetition
Others (Good! Effort Ability Exellent, etc.)
Number of turns
4 12 5 10 3 0 2 5 0 15
8 12 5 3
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.