TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS ABOUT ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN EFL SPEAKING CLASSES: A CASE AT COLLEGES IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM

Författare

  • Ngan Kim Tran Can Tho University, Vietnam
  • Cang Trung Nguyen Kien Giang University, Vietnam

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v5i2.3322

Nyckelord:

oral corrective feedback, speaking class, EFL college-school teachers, Mekong Delta

Abstract

Corrective feedback has received much attention in language teaching and learning, including English as a foreign language. However, little research has been done with regard to college teachers’ perceptions about this area of interest in speaking language classes. The present study, therefore, focuses on teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and its types at tertiary contexts within a local province of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. This paper draws on data collected as part of a larger study consisting of questionnaires. The findings indicate that teachers had positive perceptions about oral corrective feedback. However, some considered oral corrective feedback as optional since they were concerned with learners’ uptake when provided with corrective feedback. Elicitation was the most favored technique, followed by meta-linguistic feedback. Furthermore, implications are also presented.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

Författarbiografier

  • Ngan Kim Tran, Can Tho University, Vietnam
    Ngan Kim Tran is a teacher of English at Community College in Soc Trang, Vietnam. She is also currently an MA student at Can Tho University. Her research interests include language teaching for undergraduate students and young learners, classroom management, and corrective feedback in students’ speaking performance.
  • Cang Trung Nguyen, Kien Giang University, Vietnam
    Cang Trung Nguyen Cang Trung Nguyen is now a lecturer at the Faculty of Foreign Languages – Kien Giang University – Vietnam. He holds an MA in Applied Linguistics from La Trobe University – Australia and a PhD in Applied Linguistics at The University of Sheffield – UK. He worked as a teacher trainer at Kien Giang Teacher Training College – Vietnam for over ten years before moving to Kien Giang University and has worked there since 2015 as a lecturer of English.

Referenser

Bachmann, D., & Elfrink, J. (1996). Tracking the progress of email versus snail-mail. Marketing Research 8(2), 31-35.

Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English language teachers. London: Continuum.

Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 414-422.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities.

Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1999). Studying online social networks. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp.75–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. London and New York: Longman

Méndez, E. H., & Cruz, M. d. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their practice in EFL classrooms. Profile, 14(2), 63–75.

Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 284-299. Conference Proceedings.

Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change implementation. System, 24(3), 351-360.

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.

Lyster, R. & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595.

Safari, P. (2013). A descriptive study on corrective feedback and learners’ uptake during interactions in a communicative EFL class. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1165-1175.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. New York: Springer.

Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT -Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre of English Language Teaching and Research.

Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Regional Language Centre Journal, 35, 187–209.

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325-340.

Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email, and web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1).

Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. Language Awareness, 17, 78-94.

Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 293–314.

Zhao, B. (2009). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in primary school EFL classrooms in China. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 45-72.

Nedladdningar

Publicerad

2020-09-17

Nummer

Vol 5 Nr 2 (2020)

Sektion

Articles

Licens

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).