LEARNER PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDBACK ON SPOKEN ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXT

1. LEARNER PERCEPTIONS OF FEEDBACK ON SPOKEN ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING CONTEXT Presenter: Nguyen Thu Hong Email: hong.nguyen@pvu.edu.vn Ho Chi Minh City, 29 August 2013

2. Error and error correction

3. Introduction • Different viewpoints - role of CF and error correction strategies • This paper: • review the current theories • report on a research project: learner attitudes to CF in EFL context.

4. Main content 1 Literature review 2 Research design 3 Results and discussion 4 Conclusion and implications

5. Literature review Different viewpoints on • Whether to correct: Truscott (1999) vs. Seliger (1975), Hendrickson (1978), Lyster, Lightbown and Spada (1999), Schulz (2001) • When to correct: Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis (2004), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005), Brown’s (2009), Yoshida (2010) • How to correct: Lyster (2001), Panova and Lyster, (2002), Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) Sheen and Ellis (2011), Lyster and Mori (2006) • What to correct: Burt (1975), Krashen (1982) • Who correct: Truscott, Nguyen

6. Literature Review • Learners’ perceptions dissimilar to teachers’ • A lack of studies on Vietnamese intermediate-level adult learners

7. Research design Survey questionnaire for investigation: • Should learner errors in English be corrected? • When should errors be corrected? • Which learner errors should be corrected? • How should learner errors be corrected? • Who should correct errors made by learners? Further explanations

8. Research Design • Context and participation: • Context: FLC, PVU • Participants: 26 students at intermediate level of English proficiency (4-4.5 IELTS), aged 19-20

9. Results and Discussion Responses on whether errors should be corrected This result agree with Hendrickson’s (1978) Ellis’ (2009) suggestions

10. Results and Discussion Responses on when errors should be corrected Teachers should take into account the students’ sensitivity, self-esteem and individual identity when giving CF.

11. Results and Discussion Responses on which learner errors should be corrected

12. Results and Discussion Responses on which learner errors should be corrected Errors in all language areas should all be treated. The priority of a certain type of errors may vary according to the context.

13. Results and Discussion Responses on how errors should be corrected

14. Results and Discussion Responses on how errors should be corrected This finding is consistent with Lasagabaster’s and Sierra’s (2005) proposal that the most efficient corrections are supposed most likely to occur when more time and longer explanations are utilized.

15. Results and Discussion Responses on who should correct the errors The fact that students proposing mistakes should be corrected in various ways is in line with Lasagabaster’s and Sierra’s (2005) and Ellis’ (2009) suggestion.

16. Results and Discussion Responses on who should correct the errors Only some participants admitting the role of peer correction. This supports Truscott’s (1999) the negation of the role of peer correction but opposes Nguyen’s (2013) findings in her recent research where she observes that “Feedback is the type of peer scaffolding noted by most of the students, and it is also the type they highly appreciated.” (p.69).

17. Conclusion and implications • The students have different viewpoints • Flexibility on teacher’s part to cope with different demands and teaching/learning contexts. • Teachers communicate to learners • Future research: a larger sample in other EFL contexts, other research methods, other issues.

18. Thank you Presenter: Hong Nguyen Email : hong.nguyen@pvu.edu.vn