DECLARATION BY AUTHOR
I hereby certify that this thesis is entirely my own work. I have provided
fully documented references to the others’ works. The material in this thesis has
not been submitted for assessment in any other formal course. I also accept all the
requirements of university relating to the retention and use of M.A Graduation.
Author’s signature

Hứa Minh Hải

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph. D.
Date:………………………

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION BY AUTHOR

i

LIST OF TABLES

v

LIST OF CHARTS

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

viii

ABSTRACT

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1

1. Rationale

1

2. Aims of the Study

3

3. Research Questions

3

4. Scope of the Study


3

5. Research Methods

4

6. Significance of the Study

4

7. Structure of the Study

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

5

2.1. Communicative Language Competence and Second Language
Acquisition

5

2.1.1. Communicative Language Competence

5

2.1.2. Second Language Acquisition

5


2.2. Language Errors

8

2.2.1. Language Errors Defined

8

2.2.2. The Role of Errors in SLA

9

2.2.3. Errors Classified

11

2.3. Feedback Strategies

12

2.3.1. Feedback Defined

12

2.3.2. The Importance of Feedback

14

2.3.3. Teachers’ Beliefs in Feedback


15

2.3.4. Students’ Attitudes towards Feedback

16

2.4. Speaking Errors

17
ii


2.4.1. Speaking Errors Defined

17

2.4.2. Speaking Errors Classified

17

2.5. Feedback Strategies for Speaking Errors

18

2.5.1. Types of Feedback Strategies for Speaking Errors

18

2.5.2. The Selection of Errors to Give Feedback


20

2.5.3. The Selection of People Who Give Correction

22

2.5.3.1. Teacher- Correction

22

2.5.3.2. Peer- Correction

22

2.5.3.3 Self- Correction

23

2.6. Previous Studies on Feedback Strategies for Students’ Speaking Errors

23

2.7. Summary

25

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

26


3.1. Setting of the Study

26

3.2. Research Design

26

3.3. Participants

27

3.4. Data Collection Instruments

28

3.4.1. Questionnaire

28

3.4.1.1. Questionnaire for the Teachers

28

3.4.1.2. Questionnaire for the Students

29

3.4.2. Semi-Structured Interviews with the Teachers


29

3.4.3. Class Observation

30

3.5. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

30

3.5.1. Data Collection Procedure

30

3.5.2. Data Analysis Procedure

32

3.6. Summary

32

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

34

4.1. Research Question 1: Teachers’ Beliefs and their Application of
Feedback Strategies to the Students’ Speaking Errors


36

4.1.1. Teachers’ Beliefs in Feedback

36

4.1.1.1. Results from Teachers’ Questionnaire

36

4.1.2. Teachers’ Application of Feedback Strategies

38

iii


4.1.2.1. Results from Teachers’ Questionnaire

44

4.1.2.2. Results from Teachers’ Interviews

44

4.1.2.3. Results from Class Observation

48

4.2. Research Question 3: Students’ Attitudes towards their Teachers’

Speaking Error Feedback Strategies

48

4.2.1. Results from Students’ Questionnaire

48

4.3. Summary

52

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

53

5.1. Recapitulation

53

5.2. Concluding Remarks

53

5.3. Pedagogical Implications

54

5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies


56

REFERENCES

57

APPENDIX A: Questionaires for the Teachers

I

APPENDIX B: Questionaires for the Students Receiving Individual
Feedback

IV

APPENDIX C: Questionaires for the Students Receiving the Whole Class
Feedback

V

APPENDIX D: Semi-structured Interviews with the Teachers

VI

APPENDIX E: Class Observation Form

VII

iv



LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 4.1. Teachers’ Beliefs in Feedback Strategies for Students’
Speaking Errors

36

Table 4.2. Questionaire for the Students Receiving Individual Feedback

48

Table 4.3. Questionaire for the Students Receiving the Whole Class
Feedback

50

v


LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4.1. Types of Errors Teachers give Feedback for Individuals and for
the Whole Class

38

Chart 4.2. Characteristics of Errors for Teachers to Give Feedback


39

Chart 4.3. Teachers’ Frequency of Giving Feedback

40

Chart 4.4. Time of Giving the Individual and the Whole Class Feedback

41

Chart 4.5. Types of Feedback from Teachers’ Questionnaire

42

Chart 4.6. Error Corrector for Individual and the Whole Class

43

Chart 4.7. Time of Giving Feedback from Class Observation

46

Chart 4.8. Teachers’ use of Feedback Types from Class Observation

47

Chart 4.9. The Selection of Correctors from Class Observation

48


vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
PPC I: People’s Police College I
L3: third Language
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
ESL: English as Second Language
EFL: English as Foreign Language
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

vii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the process of writing this thesis, I have been fortunate to receive
supports and assistance from a variety of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Mr. Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph.D, for his enthusiastic encouragement
and guidance throughout the research. Without his well-designed plan and
meticulous review of the drafts, this thesis would not have been completed.
I also wish to thank all the professors for enriching my knowledge about
English teaching methodology and research methodology. My great thanks are
also sent to all the staff members of the faculty of Post graduate studies who gave
me the best environment to fulfill my thesis.
I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to my colleagues
at People’s Police College I (PPC I) for their great supports and constructive
suggestions in completing this research.
Last but not least, my thanks are extended to the third-years students at PPC

I who took part in this study, for it was their hard working that provided the useful
raw data.

viii


ABSTRACT
English is regarded as a basic and important subject at People’s Police
College I (PPC I) and students here are expected to achieve the pre-intermediate
level in English as well as the ability to communicate in English in normal
contexts after graduation. However, their speaking skills still have many
limitations and need much more instruction from their teachers.
The study aims at exploring teachers’ feedback strategies for the third-year
students’ speaking errors at PPC I.
Three instruments, including questionnaire for teachers and students, semistructured interviews with teachers, and class observations were employed to
achieve the purposes of the study. The subjects involved in this study were 10
teachers, including 9 females and 1 male, who have at least 3 years experience in
teaching English at PPC I and third- year students in three classes. They were
invited to participate in the survey questionnaire, interviews and class observation.
Other participants are the 150 students in three classes which were observed
during eight speaking lessons. Among them, 30 students who received individual
feedback and other 45 representative students who received the whole class
feedback were asked to evaluate their teachers’ feedback through questionnaire
for students.
It was induced in the study that most teachers of English at PPC I used a
variety of feedback strategies towards their students’ speaking errors and the way
they applied those strategies was varied. As regards the students, they showed a
strong need for teachers’ feedback as well as general satisfaction with the
feedback they received.
The findings suggest some suitable and effective ways for teachers in

applying feedback strategies to make certain positive changes in their teaching
methodology as well as to help students improve their English competence.

ix


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale of the study, the aims, the research
questions, the scope, the methods, the significance, and the structure of the study.
1.1. Rationale
Theoretically, many researches and journals about language learning and
teaching reveal that students’ errors in general and speaking errors in particular
are commonly seen in any English class, including such non- native contexts as in
Vietnam. Numerous researchers in linguistic field have shown their viewpoints
about errors in language learning process. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p.138)
state that “people cannot learn language without first systematically committing
errors”. Also, Edge (1989, p.14) points out that learner errors are “learning steps”.
Similarly, some researchers such as Bartram and Walton (1991), and Widdowson
(1990) affirm that errors are evidence of how much learners achieve their goals in
the target language. From these points, it can be said that language errors play an
important role in language learning and in assessing learners’ performance. The
issue of language errors is closely related to teacher’s feedback in English class
because feedback “has the properties of informing, regulating, strengthening,
sustaining, and error eliminating” (Han, 2001, p. 6). Although students’ speaking
errors are inevitable and the feedback for their errors is not required explicitly in
any book, it is crucial that students’ speaking errors should be paid attention
carefully and seriously by the teachers of English. It is believed that teachers’
application of feedback will have certain effects on students’ progress. However,
it can have both negative and positive effects on students’ learning. Consequently,
it is worth doing research on teachers’ feedback strategies for students’ speaking

errors in order to enhance students’learning success and achievement.
Practically, numerous studies have been conducted on language errors or
written error correction and some on oral correction in classroom environments.
After all the studies, the application of feedback strategies for speaking errors has
still been a controversial issue for many researchers. Some reseachers show
negative viewpoints on error corrections: Pienemann (1985, p. 37) states that “The
teachability hypothesis predicts that instruction can only promote language

1


acquisition if the interlanguage is close to the point when the structure to be taught
is acquired in the natural setting”, which means that if teachers point out and
correct the errors that the learners are not yet ready to learn, this error correction
has little value. Similarly, Clampitt (2001) asserts that no matter how many times
a certain grammatical structure is corrected, until the learners are ready to learn
and internalise the structure, they will not be able to use it properly on a regular
basis. Furthermore, in terms of effect of error correction, Truscott (1996) insists
that grammar correction has negative and harmful effects, because it discourages
and demotivates learners. However, it is felt that the negative standpoints on error
correction do not come from itself, but the unexpected consequences are resulted
from the way correction or feedback is delivered. Meanwhile, the supporters of
feedback or error correction prove their viewpoints persuasively. The results of
Carroll and Swain’s study (1993) claim that various types of feedback, including
explicit and implicit corrections are helpful for learners to acquire abstract
linguistic generalisations.
Specifically, at People’s Police College I, English is taught as one of the
compulsory subjects like other colleges or universities in Vietnam. The aim of the
English course in this college is to provide students with basic knowledge of
English language and the ability to communicate in English. However, it is a

matter of fact that students at PPC I have a lot of difficulties in speaking skill
because of some reasons: lack of vocabulary, low motivation, large- scale class,
and fear of speaking errors. Consequently, students here make many speaking
errors and find it hard to express their ideas in English. These errors were
commonly and repeatedly seen in all classes. The real situation leads to a
hypothesis that the way teachers of English at PPC I deal with students’ speaking
errors may have great effect on students’ speaking ability.
To conclude, the study proceeds from three main reasons, the first of which
relates to the theoretical concern about the importance of teachers’ feedback for
students’ errors in their learning success and achievement. The second impetus is the
existing controversies regarding the effects of feedback among reseachers. The last
ground is the practical hypothesis at PPC I that the application of teachers’ feedback

2


strategies affects students’ speaking competence to some extent.
1.2. Aims of the Study
The aim of the study is to improve the third-year students’ English speaking
skill at PPC I.
In order to achieve the aim, the study is expected to reach the following
objectives:
- Exploring the teachers’ beliefs and their application of feedback strategies
to the third- year students’ speaking errors;
- Investigating the third-year students’ attitudes towards the teachers’
application of speaking error feedback strategies.
1.3. Research questions
The objectives of the study can be elaborated into the research questions as
follows:
- What are the teachers’ beliefs and their feedback strategies applied to the

students’ speaking errors at PPC I?
- What are the third-year students’ attitudes towards the teachers’ speaking
error feedback strategies?
1.4. Scope of the Study.
The study is carried out at People’s Police College I, Hanoi. It mainly
focuses on typical feedback strategies: the eachers’ feedback strategies about the
students’ speaking errors, and the students’ attitudes towards the teachers’
feedback. Thus, the students’ uptake or progress from the feedback is beyond the
scope of this study. The subjects involved in this study were 10 teachers,
including 9 females and 1 male, who have at least 3 years experience in teaching
English at PPC I and third- year students in three classes. They were invited to
participate in the survey questionnaire, interviews and class observation. Other
participants are the 150 students in three classes which were observed during eight
speaking lessons. Among them, 30 students who received individual feedback and
other 45 representative students who received the whole class feedback were
asked to evaluate their teachers’ feedback through questionnaire for students.

3


1.5. Research Methods
In order to achieve the aim, action research procedures are used in the
study. The data will be collected via questionnaires, class observations and
interviews.
1.6. Significance of the Study
Theoretically, several studies and journals about language learning and
teaching reveal that the students’ errors in general and their speaking errors in
particular are commonly seen in any English class, including such non- native
contexts as in Vietnam. Numerous researchers in applied linguistic field have
shown their viewpoints about errors in language learning process. Although

students’ speaking errors are inevitable and the feedback for their errors is not
required explicitly in any book, it is crucial that students’ speaking errors should
be paid attention carefully and seriously by the teachers of English. It is believed
that teachers’ application of feedback will have certain effects on students’
progress. However, it can have both negative and positive effects on students’
learning. Consequently, it is worth doing research on teachers’ feedback strategies
for students’ speaking errors in order to enhance students’learning success and
achievement. Numerous studies have been conducted on language errors or
written error correction and some on oral correction in classroom environments.
After all the studies, the application of feedback strategies for speaking errors has
still been a controversial issue for many researchers.
Practically, the study has been conducted with the expectation that the
findings will help teachers of English at PPC I acknowledge the significance of
giving feedback for students’ speaking errors, students’ most frequent speaking
errors as well as have a deeper look at the feedback strategies used in both
viewpoints and practices. Moreover, the study will help teachers be aware of
students’ attitudes after they receive feedback. Particularly, it will provide
teachers of English with a number of useful pedagogical implications in terms of
feedback, which encourages them to apply feedback strategies for each specific
class effectively so that teachers’ feedback can help enhance students’ speaking
performance.

4


1.7. Structure of the Study
In addition to the references, the thesis is composed of five chapters:
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
CHAPTER 3: Methodology

CHAPTER 4: Findings and Discussions
CHAPTER 5: Conclusion

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The aim of this chapter is to review the literature that is closely related to
students’ speaking errors and teachers’ feedback strategies. This chapter consists
of six sections. The first section is about communicative language competence and
second language acquisition. The next two sections present an overview of general
language errors and feedback strategies. The fourth and fifth sections discuss
issues in speaking errors and feedback strategies for speaking errors. The last
section reviews studies on feedback in second language acquisition in terms of
similarities and differences.
2.1.

Communicative

Language

Competence

and

Second

Language


Acquisition
The communicative language competence plays an important role in second
language acquisition. It is the reason why these issues are described and analyzed
in this section.
2.1.1. Communicative Language Competence
As globalization has gained its momentum and the world has become more
closely connected, learning English as a second or foreign language has been a
capital part of our daily lives. It seems that one of the highest goals in learning
English towards English learners nowadays is to achieve “communicative
competence” in English. Now that almost education systems, including the ones in
non-native countries, have launched a major initiative to improve English
language teaching and learning in favor of Communicative Language Teaching
approach, this goal has become more suitable than ever before. The notion of
communicative competence has drawn much attention from numerous language
researchers and educators for such a long time. The idea of communicative
competence was originally introduced by Chomsky in his research in 1965. He
made a distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky supposed that
competence is the linguistic knowledge of the idealized native speaker, and
performance is the actual use of language in concrete situations. However, the
viewpoints of Chomsky were challenged when Hymes (1966) pointed out that

6


Chomsky’s linguistic competence lacks consideration of the most important
linguistic ability of being able to produce and comprehend utterances which are
appropriate to the various contexts in which they are made. In other words, Hymes
found that Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance too
narrow as well as too idealized to describe actual language behavior as a whole.
To help students achieve communicative competence, CLT has been made

full use of in various contexts with some main features: it focuses on meaning
rather on form, communicative competence is the desired goal, learner-centered is
emphasized, fluency is given priority over accuracy, students are expected to
interact with other people, either in oral practice, through pair and group work, or
in their writing, intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in what is being
communicated by the language, and task-based is made use of.
Because CLT focuses on fluency rather than accuracy, students’ errors are
not corrected explicitly because this may divert them away from the main concern
of the expression and negotiation of meanings. It is a common belief that errors
will disappear as they get more input along the course. However, that involves the
risk of the ‘fossilisation’ of students’ errors (Candlin: 1988). Teachers cannot rule
out the possibility that some of the language errors might become permanently
incorporated into their language. Therefore, when applying CLT in their teaching,
teachers are advised to select suitable techniques and tasks flexibly. The choice of
techniques and learning tasks in CLT is not an arbitrary decision, but is firmly
grounded in principles of learning as they are motivated by research in second
language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology. Learning what
constitutes effective ways of learning and teaching initially requires intensive
training and staying in touch with current SLA research findings, which will be
discussed in the next part.
2.1.2. Second Language Acquisition
In the era that the need for learning a second or foreign language has
become so great, second language acquisition is the field that is always of great
interest to many language researchers and teachers. Krashen (1983) is among
scholars that singled out the differences between acquisition and learning by

7


explaining that acquisition supposedly is a subconscious process that results in

fluency while learning is conscious process that involves learning rules and
structures. Krashen indicate that there are three internal elements involved in
second language acquisition, which are a “filter”, an “organizer” and a “monitor”.
Specifically, the “filter” deals with how the learner is influenced in a social
context and how he reacts in various social environments. The “organizer”
determines the arrangement of the learners’ language system. The “monitor”
operates the conscious learning part where the learners correct their speech
according to their age. It can be drawn some main points in Krashen’s, which are:
SLA is the process that learners’ cares are the meanings of language but not
language form,

SLA can happen in various social environment besides

classrooms, students can make errors in their acquisition process, and it also
involves students’ error correction.
Another commonly- accepted theory about SLA comes from Ellis’ works.
According to Ellis (1997, p. 3), SLA can be defined as “the way in which people
learn a language other their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom”. This
means that SLA process can occur in various contexts such as in classrooms, in
native or non- native target language environment. Ellis also demontrated two
main goals of SLA in his research. One of the goals is description of L2
acquisition, which means how language acquisition proceeds. Another goal is the
explanation of SLA process, which involves identifying the external and internal
factors that account for why learners acquire a L2 in the way they do and why
some learners seem to be better at it than others. To give persuasive illustrations
for the above goals of SLA, Ellis presented two case studies of L2 learners: one is
of an adult learner learning English in surroundings where it serves as a means of
communication (studied by Richard Schmidt at the University of Hawaii), and the
other of two children learning English in a classroom (studied by Ellis). After
analysing and comparing two studies, Ellis drawed some noticeable issues related

to SLA. As regards the issues in the description of language learner, he found in
two studies that learners made errors of different kinds in their acquisition such as
grammatical errors and errors of omission and overuse (adult learner) and

8


grammatical and sociolinguistic errors (child learners). Besides, he also pointed
out that L2 learners in these studies “acquire a large number of formulaic chunks,
which they use to perform communicative functions that are important to them
and which contribute to the fluency of their unplanned speech.” Another finding is
that learners acquire the language systematically.
In conclusion, second language acquisition is a very broad field that
includes a variety of issues when L2 acquisition proceeds and it can be affected by
many factors both external and internal. Among the issues raised by Krashen and
Ellis, one of the most noticeable and common components in SLA process is
learners’ language errors. Besides, in recent years language errors are not only
dealt with alone, but they are also studied together with teachers’ feedback
strategies towards the errors (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Lyster
and Ranta (1997); Surakka (2007); and Park (2010). The next part of the study
will discuss these two issues critically.
2.2. Language Errors
This part presents the definitions of language errors, the role of errors in
SLA and the classification of errors.
2.2.1. Language Errors Defined
The definition of language errors is varied because different authors have
different ways of seeing it in the process of language learning. Hendrickson
(1978) defines error with reference to error correction and teachers: “an utterance,
form or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of
its inappropriate use or its absence in real- life discourse” (p. 387). It can be seen

that this definition is highly subjective because the teacher is the only one who
decides whether the language students create is right or wrong. However, each
teacher with different views and in different contexts is likely to have various
decisions about the unacceptability of students’ performance. Another definition
of error provided by James (1998, p. 1) considers error “an unsuccessful bit of
language”. This definition is, nevertheless, too broad and not sufficient in
language teaching and learning fields.

9


In addition to defining error, many linguists find it necessary to make a
clear distinction between “mistake” and “error” in language. Brown (1994, p. 205)
quoted by Ancker (2000, p. 21), claim: “a mistake is a performance error that is
either a random guess or a slip; it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly.
An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker,
reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner”.
Edge (1989, p. 37) suggests dividing mistakes into three categories: slips,
errors and attempts. “Slips” are mistakes that students can correct themselves;
“errors” are mistakes which students cannot correct themselves; “attempts” are
student’s intentions of using the language without knowing the right way.
However, it is felt that the two terms “mistake” and “error” are used
interchangeably by many teachers in their real teaching.
According to Snow (1977), the distintion between errors and mistakes
depends on whether a second language (L2) learner knows that he/ she does
something wrong and can fix it or not. He points out that there are three stages
that L2 learners have to experience in language learning. The first stage is when
the learner does something wrong without knowing it; in the second stage, he may
know he is doing it wrong but does not know how to put it right; and the last stage
is when he can correct his wrong version. For him, errors occur in the first two

stages while mistakes belong to the last stage. Partly sharing the views with Snow,
Shastri (2010) points out, it is crucial to stress that an error is not corrigible by the
learner him/herself and suggested certain lack of linguistic competence.
In conclusion, there are many ways of defining an error. Each way has its
own reasonable aspects and certain contributions to language teaching and
learning. However, this study takes the definition of Snow (1977) as the basis to
define “a speaking error” in the next part because it helps make clear about error
in second language learning process and it is aslo suitable for the research
purposes.
2.2.2. The Role of Errors in SLA
Language learning, like any kind of human learning, involves committing
errors. In the process of learning, the learner of English as a second language

10


may be unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English
language. In the past, language teachers considered errors committed by their
students as something undesirable which they diligently sought to prevent from
occurring. During the past fifteen years, however, researchers in the field of
applied linguistics came to view errors as evidence for a creative process in
language learning in which learners employ hypothesis testing and various
strategies in learning a second language. Far from being a nuisance to be
eradicated, errors are, as Selinker (1969) indicates, significant in three respects:
(1) errors are important for the language teacher because they indicate the
learner's progress in language learning; (2) errors are also important for the
language researcher as they provide insights into how language is learnt; and (3)
finally, errors are significant to the language learner himself/herself as he/she gets
involved in hypothesis testing. Therefore, it can be felt that error shows its
positive effects on many aspects such as teaching, researching and learning.

In addition, recently, many studies of second language acquisition have
tended to focus on learners' errors since they allow for prediction of the
difficulties involved in acquiring a second language. In this way, teachers can be
made aware of the difficult areas to be encountered by their students and devote
special care and emphasis to them. Richards et al (1992) mention the study of
errors are used in order to (1) identify strategies which learners use in
language teaching, (2) identify the causes of learners’ errors, and finally (3) obtain
information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid to teaching or
in development of teaching materials( cited in Khansir, 2008). Analysis of second
language learner’s errors can help identify learner’s linguistic difficulties and
needs at a particular stage of language learning.
To support the important role of errors in second language acquisition
process more clearly, Spratt et al (2010, p. 143) highly value errors because they
are clear- cut signs of the fact that “learning is taking place and that learners are
taking risks with the language”. With this view, it can be understood that errors
are not considered the failure of learning process but the experiment with
language. To put it differently, if students only produce language correctly or

11


imitate exactly what they have been taught by teachers previously, the second
language acquisition process seems to be meaningless. There will be also no
progress made unless students are allowed to create their own new products in
language. Errors, hence, can be seen as the useful indicators of learners’
advacement in learning.
From the above-mentioned roles of errors in second language acquisition, it
is advisable that students be given the chances to make guesses and experiment
their language learned. In order to provide students with space for creativeness,
teachers are recommended to follow what Bartram and Walton (1991) claim that

students “have to have the opportunity to make [errors]” (p. 14). Moreover, it is
also necessary that teachers help students understand that errors are a natural part
of language learning process and they are encouraged to create with their
language. To do so, Bartram and Walton (1991) suggest that it might be useful for
teachers to praise the good, successful tries, rather than criticise errors. Once
teachers can supply students with sufficient freedom and encouragement to try
new pieces of language, both teaching and learning processes can make use of the
potential and wonderful benefits from errors.
2.2.3. Errors Classified
Researchers have categorized errors in various ways. Burt (1975) classifies
errors into two categories: global errors and local errors. Global errors refer to
errors that significantly hinder communication and “those that affect overall
sentence organization, such as wrong word order, missing, wrong, or misplaced
sentence connectors” (p. 56). For example: the wrong use of the conjuntion
“because” in the sentence It is raining because I stay at home instead of the
conjunction “so” can lead to the misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence.
On the other hand, “local errors affect single elements in a sentence but do not
usually hinder communication significantly such as errors in noun and verb
inflections, articles, and auxiliaries” (p. 57). For instance, many learners misuse
the past form of be “was” with the subject “you”. Burt also points out that
correction of one global error clarifies the intended message more than the

12


correction of several local errors. Furthermore, Burt argues that high-frequency
errors should be the first errors teachers should correct.
Another general classification of errors comes from Corder (1981), who
distinguishes between overt and covert error. According to him, a covert error
occurs when a learner’s utterance is superficially correct, but is nevertheless

erroneous. This case is clearly explained by Bartram and Walton (1991) that it
happens when learners say “something right by accident” (p. 21). In contrast, an
overt error appears in cases of superficially ill-formed utterances and when an
utterance is clearly erroneous. Although this distinction between the two kinds of
errors deals with correctness and erroneousness, they are both serious if they
cause failure in communication.
Edge (1989, p. 11) lists three categories of errors from linguistic aspect:
phonological, grammatical and lexical. This way of classification is also partly
shared by Choděra (2006) when he considers linguistic competence in second
language.
Considering how errors differ from the L2 structures, Dulay, Burt and
Krashen (1982) classify errors into five types : omission (where some element is
omitted that should actually be present) , addition (where some element is present
though it should not be there) , misordering (where the items presented are
selected correctly, but placed in a wrong order), misformation (where a wrong
form was selected in place of the right one), and blends (where two alternative
grammatical forms are combined to produce an ungrammatical one). Although
this type of classification is considered easy to recognized by teachers (James,
1998), it shows the high risk of being too superficial and general.
It can be shown that there is no absolute agreement on the classifications of
errors. The classifications range from the general level (global or local errors), the
errorness level, and linguistic level to the surface surface-structure level (such as
errors of omission, addition, etc.). Each model of classification complement on
each other and helps to show broad views on the various types of errors which
language learners can possibly make. However, in this study the classification of

13


errors by Edge would be used as one of bases for classifying speaking errors in the

next part.
2.3. Feedback Strategies
This part presents the definitions of feedback, the importance of feedback,
the teachers’ beliefs in feedback and the students’ attitudes towards feedback.
2.3.1. Feedback Defined
Researchers have used various operationalized definitions of feedback, and
they use different terms to refer to the similar practices such as error correction,
error treatment, corrective feedback and feedback. Among these, feedback is
considered the most general term because it implies the whole process of all other
terms. Schegloff et al. (1977) define the term correction as “the replacement of
error or mistake by what is correct” (p. 363). Chaudron (1977) defines correction
as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to
or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p. 31), which is the most
common conception employed by researchers. These two definitions of correction
show that correction is just a part in teachers’ reaction to what students produce,
which will be discussed as feedback in the following views.
Lalande (1982) terms ‘feedback’ as any kinds of procedure used to inform
whether a learner’s response is correct or wrong. Sharing the same stance,
Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the
learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p. 171). However, these
two general definitions seem to lack teacher’s activity in the teaching process. It is
because if teachers only inform learners about their errors, the feedback process
will be considered insufficient. The above definitions of feedback can be
supported by Wajnryb’s views (1992) when he recognises ‘feedback’ more
specifically as the teacher’s responses given to what learners produce in the
classroom. Corrective feedback includes both explicit and implicit feedback.
Teachers can provide corrective feedback either without interrupting the flow of
conversation (implicit feedback) or overtly with an emphasis on the ill-formed
utterance (explicit feedback).


14


To make the term feedback more comprehensible, Ellis (2009)
distinguishes between positive and negative feedback on the most general level.
He states:
Positive feedback affirms that a learner response to an activity is correct. It
may signal the veracity of the content of a learner utterance or the linguistic
correctness of the utterance. In pedagogical theory positive feedback is
viewed as important because it provides affective support to the learner and
fosters motivation to continue learning (p. 3).
As for negative feedback, he shows that it has been paid a lot of attention
by language teachers and L2 theorists because it is very necessary in second
language learning and teaching. He claims that negative feedback signals that the
learner’s utterance is linguistically deviant or lacks enough veracity. To illustrate,
Ellis takes error correction as a type of negative feedback because it “takes the
form of a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error” (p. 3).
2.3.2. The Importance of Feedback
Feedback has been used in language teaching/ learning for a long time, but
its benefit has been questioned by some language teachers. Currently, feedback
seems to undergo a revival stage as a useful teaching device. The evidence that
feedback or error correction can be helpful in L2 learning has been clearly shown.
Results of classroom research, such as Lightbown & Spada (1990), show that
“when teachers corrected learners' errors during communicative lessons, the
frequency of at least some errors […] was reduced” (Ellis, 1998, p. 53). Similarly,
Meyer (1986) points out “feedback after wrong responses may have the greatest
positive effect on student learning” (p. 228). It can be said that such teachers’
correction or feedback is proved to contribute to learners’ language development
effectively through previous research. In addition, Tomasello and Herron’s (1989)
study found that learners who were first allowed to make mistakes and were then

corrected improved their target language performance more than learners who
were given language rules in advance. Therefore, it is thought that feedback can
help develop students’ language skills: learning grammar, developing oral
communication and improving writing skills. However, it should be made clear

15


that the feedback strategies themselves do not help students enhance their
language competence, but to what extent of appropriateness they are applied in the
real teaching and learning really works. Hence, the feedback strategies are only of
great importance only when the process of teachers’ giving feedback to students
should be taken much notice of and considered thoroughly.
Another important point in the role of feedback is that teachers do not only
use feedback to affect the one who receives it, but they also make use of feedback
on the groups of students or the whole class. Giving explanations to this kind
positive effect of feedback, Allwright & Bailey (1991) emphasize that the output
of one learner may serve as input of the other learners. It means that when a
learner makes an error, the way teachers deal with it – whether to correct it or not
and how to correct it- is likely to affect more people at the same time. As
Allwright & Bailey (1991) explain, “If a teacher chooses not to treat an error in
one learner's utterance, the other learners may assume that the form or function
was correct as it stood” (p. 102).
2.3.3. Teachers’ Beliefs in Feedback
In its general meaning, a belief is seen as “mental state which has as its
content a proposition that is accepted as true by the individual holding it, although
the individual may recognize that alternative beliefs may be held by others.”
(Borg, 2001). In language teaching field, teachers’ beliefs are used to refer to
teachers’ pedagogic beliefs, or those beliefs of relevance to an individual teaching.
(Calderhead, 1995). The areas most commonly explored are teachers’ beliefs

about teaching, learning, learners, and subject matters...
Research on teachers' beliefs has demonstrated that beliefs have an
important impact on teachers' practice (Borg, 2003; Tsui, 2003). Moreover, both
of teachers’ beliefs and practices “have a direct bearing on the teaching and
learning process” (Griffiths 2007, cited in Lee, 2008). From this perspective,
teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to feedback are central to its
implementation and efficacy in English speaking classes and will decide whether
students have the opportunity to engage in and benefit from feedback activities.
Therefore, EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to feedback strategies

16