Keywords
learner beliefs
gender
motivation
Vietnamese secondary school
How to Cite
Number of views: 2866
Number of downloads: 1828
Abstract
This study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design to examine the beliefs of Vietnamese EFL students concerning oral corrective feedback (CF) and the role of some individual differences in these beliefs. The data consisted of questionnaires completed by 250 Vietnamese high school students and follow-up interviews with 15 of them. Exploratory factor analysis revealed six latent factors underlying students’ beliefs about CF, namely, (1) output-prompting CF and eliciting recasts, (2) desire for CF, (3) non-verbal cues, (4) important errors, (5) input-providing CF, and (6) less important errors. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of the interviews showed that students were positive about CF. They liked both input-providing CF and output-prompting CF for all error types. Metalinguistic feedback was the most strongly preferred, while clarification request was the least preferred. Further statistical analyses revealed some interesting relationships between students’ beliefs about CF and their gender, English learning motivation, and self-rated introversion/extraversion. Females were more positive about CF than males, and extraverted females were more positive about input-providing CF than introverted females. Also, students learning English for exams were more positive about CF than those learning English for communication. Pedagogical implications for effective feedback provision in EFL contexts are discussed.
References
Agudo, J. M. (2015). How do Spanish EFL learners perceive grammar instruction and corrective feedback? Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 33(4), 411-425.
Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.007
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00827.x
Cutillo, L. (2019). Parametric and multivariate methods. In S. Ranganathan, K. Nakai, & C. Schonbach (Eds.), Encyclopedia of bioinformatics and computational biology (pp. 738-746). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.20335-X
Davis, A. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning. Evaluation & Research in Education, 17(4), 207-222.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Innovations and challenges in language learning motivation. Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7-25.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3-18). Routledge.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational model. Peter Lang.
Gilgun, J. (2011). Coding in deductive qualitative analysis. Current Issues in Qualitative Research: An Occasional Publication for Field Researchers from a Variety of Disciplines, 2(1), 1-4.
Ha, X. V. (2017). Primary EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback in Vietnam: Beliefs and practices (Master of Research thesis). Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/mq:70822
Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. C. (2020). Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers. Advanced online publication. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362168820931897
Ha, X. V., & Murray, J. C. (2021). The impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ beliefs about corrective feedback. System, 96, 102405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102405
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Pearson.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 86-109.
Kim, J., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Incidental focus on form and the role of learner extraversion. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 698-718.
Kim, Y., & Mostafa, T. (2021). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs and perspectives about corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 561-580). Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Leontjev, D. (2016). Exploring and reshaping learners’ beliefs about the usefulness of corrective feedback: A sociocultural perspective. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(1), 46-77.
Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143-157). Routledge.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge University Press.
Nakatsukasa, K. (2017). Gender and recasts: Analysis of males’ and females’ L2 development following verbal and gesture-enhanced recasts. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 100-119). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.16.05nak
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury.
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner’s preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00138
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Allen & Unwin.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Cultural differences in perceptions of form-focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 77-94). Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2020). The effect of proficiency, gender, and learning style on the occurrence of negotiated interaction in communicative task performance. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Cross-theoretical explorations of interlocutors and their individual differences (pp. 51-75). John Benjamins.
Quinn, P. G., & Nakata, T. (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 35-47). Routledge.
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between adult EFL teachers’ oral feedback practices and their beliefs. System, 46, 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.system.2014.07.012
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2016.1235580
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 53-77). Oxford University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA‐Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford University Press.
Van Der Slik, F. W., Van Hout, R. W., & Schepens, J. J. (2015). The gender gap in second language acquisition: Gender differences in the acquisition of Dutch among immigrants from 88 countries with 49 mother tongues. PloS One, 10(11).
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012
Zhu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). Investigating English language learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback at Chinese universities: a large-scale survey. Language Awareness, 28(2), 1-29.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.