Matches and mismatches between EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences for corrective feedback in English speaking classes at a Vietnamese University

r stated 
in Literature review, she desired to reveal 
other types of error correction besides selected 
types. However, the results from observations 
fail to identify any other types of corrective 
feedback used by teachers. In addition, since 
the teachers are non-native speakers, there 
are chances for them to commit errors. In 
previous studies, students often made one 
error and teachers used to treat one error with 
one type of corrective feedback. However, in 
this study, it was found that students made 
more than one error in an utterance and 
teachers used more than one type of corrective 
feedback to treat all students’ errors. In fact, 
teachers sometimes did not pay attention to 
students’ errors. Additionally, most of the 
time, teachers interrupted students at the 
time when they made wrong utterances. This 
might be a distraction of learning process. 
Students can be embarrassed and lose the trail 
of thought. Especially, the teachers corrected 
some students more frequently than others as 
some students had a higher level of proficiency 
which to a certain extent prevented correction. 
In fact, this was beyond the scope of this study. 
The study has gone some ways towards 
enhancing our understanding of oral corrective 
feedback and different views towards teachers 
and students’ preferred types. The gaps 
that have been identified therefore assists 
in our understanding of the role of learners’ 
preferences in enhancing errors in teaching 
and learning practice. Taken together, these 
findings suggest a role for error correction in 
promoting foreign language acquisition. Later 
researchers who have the same interest in the 
research field can somehow benefit from the 
current study with recommendations for future 
research. It is suggested to carry out continued 
studies on the influences of explicit corrective 
feedback in second language classroom 
settings in order to understand its role and 
measure its effects better. This research also 
opens a number of other research possibilities: 
teachers’ attitude towards feedback, learners’ 
uptake, and effectiveness of certain corrective 
techniques as well as the correlation between 
other individual differences such as learning 
styles, motivation, and attitude towards 
feedback.
151VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 142-155
References
Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring of 
the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback 
in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different 
levels of proficiency. Procedia - Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.11.435. 
Amin, K. (2017). Educational context and ELT teachers’ 
corrective feedback preference: Public and private school 
teachers in focus. International Journal of Research in 
English Education, 2(2), https://www.civilica.com/Paper-
JR_IJREE-JR_IJREE-2-2_002.html. 
Amrhein H.R., & Nassaji H. (2010). Written corrective 
feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? 
Canadian Journal of Applied linguistics, 13, 95-127. 
Ananda et al. (2017). Students’ preferences toward oral 
corrective feedback in speaking class at English 
Department of Lambung Mangkurat University 
Academic Year 2015/2016. Theory and Practice in 
Language Studies, 7, 176. doi:10.17507/tpls.0703.03
Aranguiz, M. F., & Espinoza, A. Q. (2016). Oral 
corrective feedback strategies in EFL: A pilot study 
in Chilean classrooms. Elia, 16, 103-132. https://
doi.org/10.12795/elia.2016.i16.05
Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of language and 
teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 
Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. 
International Review of Applied Linguistics in 
Language Teaching, 4, 161-170. 
Dinh, T.H. (2013). An investigation into teachers’ 
attitudes towards and practices of corrective 
feedback on students’ oral mistakes at Hanoi 
National University of Education. Unpublished 
thesis. Hanoi: Vietnam National University. 
Fungula, B.N. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in 
the Chinese EFL classroom: Methods employed 
by teachers to give feedback to their students. 
Retrieved from 
get/diva2:693017/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Gumbaridze, J. (2013). Error correction in EFL speaking 
classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral 
Sciences, 70, 1660–1663
Han, J., & Jung, J-K. (2007). Patterns and preferences 
of corrective feedback and learner repair. Journal of 
Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 243–260.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of 
feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 
81–112.
Hausman, D.M. (2005). Sympathy, commitment, and 
preference. Economics & Philosophy, 21, 33–50. 
Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students’ 
preferences toward correction of classroom 
oral errors. Asian EFL journal, 9(4), 284-299. 
Conference Proceedings.
Lee, E.J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences 
and learner repair among advanced ESL students. 
System, 41(2), 217–230. 
system.2013.01.022 
Lyster, R., & Panova, I. (2002). Patterns of corrective 
feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. 
TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595. 
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback 
and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in 
communicative classrooms. Studies in Second 
Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R.; Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective 
feedback in second language classrooms. Language 
Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. 
Méndez, E.H., & Cruz, M.R. (2012). Teachers’ 
perceptions about oral corrective feedback and their 
practice in EFL classrooms. Retrieved from http://
www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pi
d=S1657-07902012000200005
Motlagh, L. (2015). Irinan EFL teachers’ preferences for 
corrective feedback types, implicit vs explicit. Procedia 
- Social and Behavioral Science, 192, 364–370. 
Mpho, O. (2018). Teacher centered dominated 
approaches: Their implications for today’s inclusive 
classrooms. International Journal of Psychology 
and Counselling, 10(2), 11-21.
Nguyen, T.T. (2014). Teacher’s corrective feedback on 
the pronunciation of English fricatives and affricates 
by non-English major freshmen at the Diplomatic 
Academy of Vietnam. Unpublished thesis. Hanoi: 
Vietnam National University.
Nhac, T.H. (2011). Corrective feedback and uptake patterns 
in English university speaking lesson. Unpublished 
thesis. Hanoi: Vietnam National University.
Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types 
and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL 
classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL 
(Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113–133.
Poulos, A & Mahony, M.J. (2008). Effectiveness of 
feedback: the students’ perspective. Assessment & 
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143–154. 
New York: Routledge.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing 
student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment 
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. 
Saeb, F. (2017). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions and 
preferences for oral corrective feedback: Do they 
match?. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 
& English Literature, 6(4), 32–44. 
org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.4p.32 
Shirkhani, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2016). L2 Teachers’ 
Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback and 
Its Linguistic Focus. Iranian Journal of Applied 
Linguistics, 19, 181-206.
152 L.T.Huong / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 142-155
Talib, R., Naim, H., & Supie, H. (2015). UTM 
postgraduate students’ perspective on feedback 
practices in higher education. International 
Education Studies, 8(13), 17-21. 
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction 
in L2 writing class. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. 
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ 
preference of corrective feedback types. 
Language Awareness, 17(1), 78–93. 
org/10.2167/la429.
TƯƠNG ĐỒNG VÀ KHÁC BIỆT VỀ QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA 
GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN 
HỒI SỬA LỖI TRONG KỸ NĂNG NÓI Ở MỘT TRƯỜNG 
ĐẠI HỌC VIỆT NAM
Lưu Thị Hương
Khoa Ngoại ngữ, Trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà Nội 2 
Xuân Hòa, Phúc Yên, Vĩnh Phúc, Việt Nam
Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu này tìm hiểu những sự tương đồng và khác biệt giữa những sở thích đối với phản 
hồi sửa lỗi của giáo viên và sinh viên tiếng Anh như là một ngoại ngữ trong lớp học nói tiếng Anh ở một 
trường đại học Việt Nam. Công cụ sử dụng để thu thập dữ liệu cho nghiên cứu là quan sát lớp học và bảng 
câu hỏi khảo sát cho giáo viên và sinh viên. Đối tượng nghiên cứu là 05 giáo viên và 138 sinh viên ngành 
tiếng Anh. Nghiên cứu chỉ ra nhiều kết quả cho từng câu hỏi nghiên cứu. Kết quả cho thấy dù có sự tương 
đồng giữa những sở thích của sinh viên và giáo viên, một số sự khác biệt cũng được phát hiện trong nghiên 
cứu này. 
Từ khoá: phản lỗi chữa lỗi bằng lời nói, sự tương đồng, sự khác biệt, giáo viên và sinh viên ngành tiếng 
Anh
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SHEET ON TEACHERS’ ORAL 
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
General information
Observer: Instructor:
Date of observation: 
Year level: Class: 
Number of boys: Number of girls: 
Start time: Finish time: 
Lesson topic: 
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION TALLY SHEET 
Feedback strategies Tallies Total 
1 Teacher says nothing. 
153VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 142-155
2 Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student’s grammatical 
error by changing his/her tone of voice. 
3 Explicit feedback: The teacher gives the correct form to the student 
with a grammatical explanation. 
4 Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to correct and complete 
the sentence.
5 Clarification request: The teacher does not give corrective feedback 
on the student’s errors. 
6 Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher gives a hint or a clue without 
specifically pointing out the mistake.
7 Recast: The teacher repeats the student’s utterance in the correct 
form without pointing out the student’s error.
8 Paralinguistic signal: Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student 
has made error and is expected to self-correct.
Details 
Coding scheme:
T: Teacher 
S: Student
No. Example of students’ errors Teacher’s response Types of oral corrective 
feedback
1
2
3
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES 
TOWARDS TYPES OF ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SPEAKING 
CLASSROOMS
B.1. STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
The purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of teachers and students at Faculty 
of Foreign Languages at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 about error correction. The information 
gathered will be used for research on corrective feedback in language classrooms with a view to 
finding out the matches and mismatches to adjust it during learning and teaching process. There 
are no risks or benefits to you from participating in this research. 
Thank you very much. 
A: DEMOGRAPHY 
1. Gender: Tick ✓your gender.
Male
Female
2. Age: ...
3. Email: .
4. Hometown: .
5. How long have you been learning English? Put a tick ✓. 
 Less than 10 years 
154 L.T.Huong / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 142-155
 More than 10 years 
6. Major: Tick ✓your major. 
English Linguistics
English Language Teaching 
7. Year: Tick ✓your course.
K41
K42
K43
K44
Please tick ✓the information that applies to you. Make sure to mark only one. 
B: How do you rate each type of spoken error correction below?
1 = Very ineffective 4 = Effective
2 = Ineffective 5 = Very Effective 
3 = Neutral
Teacher: What is he talking about? 
Student: He talks about his garden.
No. 1 2 3 4 5
8 Teacher says nothing. 
9 He talks? (Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student’s 
grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice.) 
10 Talks is the simple present tense. In this case you need 
to use the continuous present tense. (Explicit feedback: 
The teacher gives the correct form to the student with a 
grammatical explanation.) 
11 At the moment, he  (Elicitation: The teacher asks the 
student to correct and complete the sentence.) 
12 Excuse me? (Clarification request: The teacher does not 
give corrective feedback on the student’s errors.) 
13 When we are speaking about something that happens right 
now which tense do we use? (Metalinguistic feedback: 
The teacher gives a hint or a clue without specifically 
pointing out the mistake.) 
14 He is talking about his garden. (Recast: The teacher repeats 
the student’s utterance in the correct form without pointing 
out the student’s error.) 
15 Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made 
error and is expected to self-correct. (Paralinguistic signal)
B.2. TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE 
The purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of teachers and students at Faculty 
of Foreign Languages at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 about error correction. The information 
gathered will be used for research on corrective feedback in language classrooms with a view to 
finding out the matches and mismatches to adjust it during learning and teaching process. There 
are no risks or benefits to you from participating in this research. 
Thank you very much. 
155VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol.36, No.1 (2020) 142-155
A: DEMOGRAPHY 
1. Gender: Tick ✓your gender. 
Male
Female
2. Age: 
3. Email: .
4. Hometown: .
5. How long have you been teaching English? Put a tick ✓.
less than 5 years
5-10 years
more than 10 years
6. Tick ✓to the box that indicates the course you are teaching. 
K41
K42
K43
K44
Please tick ✓the information that applies to you. Make sure to mark only one. 
B: How do you rate each type of spoken error correction below?
1 = Very Ineffective 4 = Effective
2 = Ineffective 5 = Very Effective 
3 = Neutral
Teacher: What is he talking about? 
Student: He talks about his garden.
STT 1 2 3 4 5
7 Teacher says nothing. 
8 He talks? (Repetition: The teacher emphasizes the student’s 
grammatical error by changing his/her tone of voice.) 
9 Talks is the simple present tense. In this case you need to use the 
continuous present tense. (Explicit feedback: The teacher gives 
the correct form to the student with a grammatical explanation.) 
10 At the moment, he  (Elicitation: The teacher asks the student to 
correct and complete the sentence.) 
11 Excuse me? (Clarification request: The teacher does not give 
corrective feedback on the student’s errors.) 
12 When we are speaking about something that happens right now 
which tense do we use? (Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher 
gives a hint or a clue without specifically pointing out the mistake.) 
13 He is talking about his garden. (Recast: The teacher repeats the 
student’s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the 
student’s error.) 
14 Teacher rises eyebrows to tell that the student has made error and is 
expected to self-correct. (Paralinguistic signal)