Abstract

This study investigates the attitudes of Hanoi high school students toward oral
corrective feedback (OCF) in English lessons. Specifically, it tries to find the impact
of different approaches aligns with students’ preference; and how this can affect
students’ accuracy, and engagement. The participants are two teachers and twenty
senior students participated in surveys and classroom observations. According to
the results, students prefer explicit correction and elicitationthe most, then recasts
and metalinguistic feedback. However, different proficiency levels also have
different preferences: while intermediate students prefer subtle cues that promote
self-correction, beginner learners prefer more direct corrections. In terms of
effectiveness, recasts and elicitation encouraged fluency, while explicit correction
increased accuracy. The results give insight into how teachers can alter OCF usage
based on Vietnamse students’ needs.

I. Introduction
Oral corrective feedback (OCF) helps students identify and rectify linguistic faults,
which can help students learn and grow, hence it is deemed essential in language
learning and more specifically, English learning. Each student have their unique
preferences, error types, and educational circumstances and are impacted
differently by several forms of OCF (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Although the effect of OCF
on ESL students’ performance has been extensively studied, there haven’t been one
that focus on the niche cultural and educational contexts of Vietnam. Researching
about this can help gain insight in how OCF are used and preferred in Vietnamese
classrooms, where indirect communication and respect for instructors are strongly
valued. Hence, by investigating Vietnamese learners' perceptions toward OCF, this
study fills in a knowledge gap and informs more appropriate teaching methods to
this geographical area..
The majority of Vietnam's educational system is still teacher-centered, and the main
form of feedback is frequently explicit correction (Tran & Nguyen, 2020). This
arrangement creates a learning environment where classroom dynamics,
motivation, and engagement can be significantly influenced by whether there is
alignment between teachers' feedback approaches and students' choices. In fact,
according to research, OCF may be less effective if learner expectations and
instructor feedback don't align, causing dissatisfaction or disengagement (Schulz,
2001). Therefore, boosting the impact of OCF requires a broad understanding of how
students, in this case Vietnamse high school students, view it.
II. Literature Review
It has long been accepted that oral corrective feedback (OCF) is a crucial
component of learning a second language since it enables students to recognize
and fix their errors while also advancing their language proficiency. The functions of
various OCF kinds are different. For instance, explicit correction helps increase
accuracy because it identifies mistakes and gives the students proper form (Ellis,
2009). However, recasts gently reword errors without interfering with the
conversation, even though students might not always identify them as corrections
(Lyster & Saito, 2010). Elicitation promotes active engagement and greater
retention by encouraging students to self-correct (Lyster & Mori, 2006). Instead of
providing answers right away, metalinguistic feedback encourages reflection by
hinting at the answers (Ellis, 2009). Although their usefulness is still up for question,
clarification requests—which indicate ambiguous responses—are used as well
(Lyster et al., 2013).
Feedback techniques work best when they suit students' interests and learning
styles, according to an extensive amount of research. For example, Sheen (2011)
emphasized the advantages of combining explicit correction with metalinguistic
explanations to address complicated errors, while Li (2010) discovered that students
respond better to feedback that aligns with what they expect. Indirect feedback,
which encourages students to self-correct, may result in better long-term recall than
direct correction, according to other studies (Mackey & Goo, 2007; Kim & Han,
2015). There is a lack of understanding about how high school pupils view and react
to OCF, particularly in culturally unique contexts like Vietnam, as a large portion of
this study has concentrated on college-level learners or general language
acquisition situations (Karimi & Asadnia, 2015).
Explicit correction is frequently the preferred technique for resolving errors in
Vietnam's teacher-centered educational system (Tran & Nguyen, 2020). Although
this method might make things clearer and save time, it might not always be in line
with students' changing desires for more dynamic and interesting feedback.
According to research, Vietnamese students at the college level value strategies
that encourage individual learning and active engagement, such as elicitation and
metalinguistic feedback. It's unclear, though, if high school students, who frequently
have less influence over their education and depend more on teachers' direction,
also have these preferences.
Classroom dynamics, students' skill levels, and individual teaching philosophies all
have an impact on teachers' choices of feedback techniques (Ellis, 2009). Higher-
proficiency students might gain more from interactive techniques like elicitation
that promote active participation, even though explicit correction is frequently
chosen for its clarity (Lyster & Saito, 2010). In the case of Vietnamese high school
students, they might be reluctant to express their preferences or seek clarification
due to many reasons (personality, classroom environment, time limit, learning style,
etc.), and if misalignment occurs, it can result in decreased motivation,
disengagement, and ineffective learning (Karimi & Asadnia, 2015). Moreover, in
Asian countries, students may be less inclined to contest or inquire about feedback
because of the domninantly widepread teacher-centered classrooms here. As a
result, their self-esteem, drive, and general learning results may be negatively
impacted in the long term (Schulz, 2001; Tran & Nguyen, 2020). In fact, research
has indicated that Vietnamese college students react positively to feedback styles
that encourage autonomy (Tran & Nguyen, 2020), which may indicate that if the
highschool-level students have the same preference, it is crucial to be
acknowledged by teachers to avoid negative learning consequences.
To gain this knowledge, this study seeks to find the kinds of OCF frequently utilized
in each skills in an Hanoi high schools and see whether or not they suit students'
interests. Additionally, it assesses the effects of various feedback techniques on
students' engagement, motivation, and learning results. By illuminating these
dynamics, the study provides useful suggestions for improving OCF's efficiency,
assisting Vietnamese high school students to improve their language proficiency in
more conducive and adaptable learning settings and also providing useful
preferences for future research.

III. Research Questions

The research questions for this study are:
1. What types of OCF are most commonly used by teachers in the selected
school?
2. What types of OCF do students prefer?

IV. Methodology

1. Research Design

This study uses a quantitative design. Participants were selected through

convenience sampling from a high school in Hanoi to ensure the study reflects the
local cultural and educational context. Quantitative data were analyzed using
descriptive statistics to seek out patterns and possible correlations.

2. Participants

The participants included 2 English teachers from a high school in Hanoi who
regularly provide OCF in their English classes. Additionally, 20 high school seniors
taught by the two teachers were also a part of the study. Before the research, the
students and teachers had received and signed the Participant Form and the
Consent form (Appendix 6)
 3. Pilot Study Procedure

To evaluate and improve the research instruments and make sure the data
collection techniques were transparent and trustworthy, a pilot study was
conducted prior to the main study. Two high school seniors were observed in an
English lesson during this preparatory phase, after which the questionnaire intended
for the main study was administered. This was to determine if the student
questionnaire accurately reflected students' opinions and preferences toward
various forms of feedback, as well as how well the observation process could go.

Additionally, it helped the researcher to check their language usage in the checklist
or questions in terms of eligibility and to correct errors that occur. After the pilot
study, minor changes were made, such as examples to the questionnaire to help
students comprehend it and defining OCF techniques so that students can
understand terminologies better.

4. Data Collection

4.1. Classroom Observation

The researcher observed two 45-minute high school sessions with ten students
each. The purpose of classroom observation is to record the two teachers’ usage of
oral corrective feedback (OCF) when teaching English. The checklist (Appendix 1)
displays OCF categories and tick count. Every instance of OCF that the instructor
provided was noted by the researcher during the observation, who classified it using
the checklist and kept track of its frequency in a table. The researcher also recorded
the students' reaction when hearning the feedback and also the accuracy of their
answers after the correction.

4.2. Student Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Appendix 2) has two sections: multiple-choice questions to

identify preferred OCF types and Likert-scale questions to rate attitudes which
collects quantitative data on learners' preferences and attitudes toward OCF types.
The results (Appendix 4) provide insights into students' favorite OCF types and their
attitudes towards the teachers’ feedback.

4.3. Data Management & Analysis

The data gathered were examined using the quantitative technique

In classroom observation form, the frequency of each OCF type used by teachers
was counteed and also noted for additional information. The accuracy of the
students' answers following comments was also tracked in order to calculate the
percentage of accuracy of each OCF type and were ranked based on the number of
correct responses they produced. Additionally, student engagement was evaluated
and categorized on three levels: High, moderate and poor

In the survey, gender of the students were recorded, and the competency levels
were based on students’ recent English GPA. Feedback preferences were evaluated
by grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, politeness, and message clarity.
Responses to Likert-scale questions were analyzed to see the main attitudes of
students toward each type of OCF are. After which, patterns that formed were
investigated in numerous aspects (e.g. by level of proficiency). At the end, to check
for correlation, the accuracy of students’ answers after different types of feedbacks
was analysed to see whether what students’ prefer is actually what is effective.

Finally, a cross-analysis compared the effectiveness of each OCF method (measured

by accuracy and engagement) with students’ self-reported preferences. This
comparison determined whether the feedback types students favor are also the
most effective in improving their performance. By examining the connection
between students’ preferences and actual needs, the study aims to offer practical
insights for refining OCF strategies in high school English classrooms.

4.4. Ethical Consideration

To ensure the safety of all participants, this study was carried out in line with
University of Canberra's ethical procedures. Participants gave signed informed
consent after being fully told about the study's goals, methods, possible risks, and
advantages before data collection. All personal identities were eliminated from the
data and substituted with aliases to maintain anonymity. The data was also safely
stored, with only the research team having access. Participants were informed of
their right to withdraw from the study at any point without any negative
consequences.

5. Anticipated Results

The study anticipates that Vietnamese high school students would choose explicit
correction and elicitation because they provide clear advice and encourage self-
correction. However, shy students may prefer more subtle adjustments, such as
recasting. Teachers may favor corrections that do not disrupt the conversational
flow, such as recasting or elicitation. In terms of effectiveness, students may be
correct about which OCF are appropriate for them.

6. Limitations

The study may not accurately reflect the larger environment of Vietnamese high
schools because it focuses only on a small sample in a single Hanoi high school.
Furthermore, students may give answers they think are anticipated or misinterpret
the survey's purpose, which might make the data they provide bias
V. Findings
1. Students’ Demographic
Most participants were female and fell into the upper-intermediate (30%) and high
upper-intermediate (20%) categories, representing 50% of respondents. About 25%
of students were at intermediate levels, and the remaining 25% ranged from
beginner to lower intermediate. Most students fell into the upper-intermediate
(30%) and high upper-intermediate (20%) levels, collectively accounting for 50% of
the respondents. This suggests that half of the surveyed students possess relatively
strong English proficiency.
Chart 1: Gender Distribution of the Participants

Chart 2: GPA Distribution of the Participants

2. Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences

2.1. Teachers’ Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences
According to the results of the observation form (Appendix 3), the teacher mostly
used Metalinguistic Feedback (5 occasions) and Explicit Correction (7 instances) in
the first class, which comprised beginning to lower-intermediate pupils. Clarification
requests and recasts were not utilized. There was more variety in the second
session, which had pupils of higher proficiency. The teacher used explicit correction
five times, elicitation eight times, and recasts eight times. Because they save time,
teachers frequently choose more straightforward feedback techniques like explicit
correction. By offering quick, unambiguous corrections, teachers may fix mistakes
quickly, preserving the flow of the lesson and covering more ground in the limited
class time.

Accuracy improvements were seen among the first class's students, particularly
when Metalinguistic Feedback and Elicitation were applied. However, there were
differences in the degree of participation, and some students seemed
uncomfortable or distracted during follow-ups, which raised the possibility that
some of the techniques were more for discipline than instructional. The second
class, on the other hand, showed greater accuracy and involvement, particularly
during Elicitation and Recasts. By enabling pupils to self-correct without interfering
with speech, these techniques promoted fluency.

Table 1: Corrective Feedback Checklist for Class 1

Table 2: Corrective Feedback Checklist for Class 2

Chart 3: Frequency of Corrective Feedback in Two Classes

2.2. Students’ Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences
Appendix 4's analysis of student preferences revealed clear trends according to
language proficiency and feedback types. For pronunciation (30%), message
conveyance (35%), and fluency (28%), recasts were the most popular, indicating
that students favor feedbacks that preserve the flow of the conversation. However,
where accuracy was essential, explicit feedback was preferred for vocabulary (25%)
and politeness (30%).
Elicitation was moderately preferred for fluency (25%), suggesting that students
valued instructions to help them self-correct without being told the correct answer
right away. However, because of their disruptive character, clarification requests
and repetition were the least desired, particularly when it came to politeness and
message delivery.

Table 3: OCF Preferences for Different Language Skills (in %)

Table 4: Students’ OCF Preference in each Skill
3. Accuracy and Engagement of Student Responses After Oral Corrective
Feedback
With an 83.33% success rate, explicit correction was the most effective approach.
Elicitation was 100% successful in promoting participation in Class 1, however,
Recasts were only somewhat successful in enhancing fluency without interfering
with conversations.
Recasts and Elicitation were the most successful feedbacks (2.375), whereas
clarification requests (1.000) and metalinguistic feedback (1.800) received lower
scores, suggesting decreased accuracy as corrections disrupted the flow of
communication.
Table 5: Effectiveness Analysis Between The Two Obseved Class

Table 6: Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) ranking based on their engagement scores
4. Attitudes Toward OCF
According to the Likert-scale data, students gave the highest rating to explicit
correction (4.12) and metalinguistic feedback (4.15). On the other hand,
Clarification Requests (3.65) received a lower rating, maybe as a result of their
vagueness, especially, students at lower level gave lower engagement score for this
feedback compare to the higher-proficiency ones
As proficiency levels increased, preferences changed. While upper-intermediate
learners chose Metalinguistic Feedback (4.21) and Elicitation (3.96), beginners
preferred Explicit Correction (4.50) and Repetition (4.25). According to these
patterns, learners' preferences change as their language skills advance, moving
from direct ways when they first start to complex, self-corrective approaches as
they gain proficiency.
Table 7: Mean Scores of Learners' Attitudes Toward OCF Types
Table 8: OCF Preference Trends by Proficiency Level (Mean Scores)
5. Cross-Analysis
While students preferred Recasts and Elicitation, their accuracy was most closely
associated with Explicit Correction, which means there is a mismatch between
preferences and effectiveness (ρ = 0.12). Correlation analysis revealed a modest
positive relationship (ρ = 0.55) between teachers' choices for Recasts and
Metalinguistic Feedback and student accuracy. This was not statistically significant
(p = 0.26).Table 9: Correlation Between Preferences and Feedback Effectiveness

Chart 4: Correlation Between Preferences and Effectiveness of OCF Types

VI. Discussion
These results highlight how important it is to use OCF tactics that correspond with
students' requirements and learning stages. For instance, Explicit Correction worked
very well with beginners since it offers precise and thorough instructions for laying a
solid foundation. This supports Ellis's 2009 claim that clear feedback encourages
accuracy and enables students to obtain clarity immediately. Recasts and elicitation
were preferred by more experienced students because they promote self-correction
and maintain fluency. The results of Lyster and Saito (2010), who claim that recasts
benefit students who aspire for fluency rather than grammatical accuracy, support
these preferences.
The preferences of pupils and what genuinely improves learning, however, differ.
Similar to Li's (2010) finding that explicit feedback frequently leads to greater
linguistic improvements, even if students are more at ease with indirect methods,
many students favor subtle techniques like recasts, while clear correction routinely
results in improved accuracy. This implies that educators should strike a balance
between methods of instruction that prioritize accuracy and those that are
engaging, particularly for those at beginner level.
Deeper thinking is promoted by metalinguistic feedback, particularly for
intermediate and upper-intermediate students. This approach supports Sheen's
(2011) claim that metalinguistic cues successfully address complicated errors by
helping students who prefer explanations over direct corrections so they can fully
understand standards and patterns. Lower engagement with this strategy, however,
suggests the possibility that it works better for planned learning activities than for
unplanned ones. Although it encourages cognitive engagement, it must be used
carefully to maintain students' interest.
However, elicitation has been shown to be successful at any level of proficiency.
This method worked best on tasks that placed a greater emphasis on
communication because it encouraged active participation and self-correction.
Explicit Correction, however, might be an essential help for beginners before
moving into more indirect approaches such as Elicitation. This supports the findings
of Mackey and Goo 2007, who also observed that elicitation actually is a more
effective tool for long-term retention through active involvement although it may
not be ideal for immediate error correction.
Students' preferences for feedback are also influenced by cultural influences. Many
students in Vietnam prefer explicit correction, especially in formal classroom
settings, which is possibly explained by Vietnam's teacher-centered educational
system, which places a strong emphasis on hierarchy and structure. At the same
time, higher-level learners' preference for Elicitation and Recasts suggests that as
students gain confidence in their skills, they would want more freedom and
autonomy. Shahidzade (2017) highlights how cultural norms affect how criticism is
accepted and advises educators to strike a balance between respecting
authoritative figures and using tactics that encourage student autonomy. For
example, advanced learners can practice fluency without stress by using Recasts in
group discussions.
Additionally, the correlation study demonstrates the importance of striking a
compromise between student preferences and effectiveness. Even while students
might feel more comfortable receiving feedback in an indirect manner, techniques
like explicit correction are still essential for improving correctness, particularly in
vocabulary and grammar. Being flexible, the instructor should begin with explicit
correction for beginners before moving on to recast and metalinguistic feedback as
the students’ confidence grows. Similar to this insight, to help learners progress
toward more autonomous learning styles, Schulz (2001) agrees that feedback
techniques should be gradual and aligned with the learner's cognitive and
emotional growth.
The results proves that teachers should consider and modify their feedback
methods based on students' levels. OCF should be viewed as a dynamic process
that needs constant change after surpassing different levels rather than being fixed
based on the teachers’ preference or the initial start of the class. Teachers should
establish a dynamic learning environment that meets students' developmental
needs by carefully balancing OCFs that promote accuracy and autonomy.
By employing larger samples and examining the long-term impacts of various
feedback strategies, future research could make these findings more significant and
broadly applicable. Direct qualitative information from the teachers may provide a
clearer picture of how instructional choices align or differ with student preferences.
With this insight, teachers can have more grounds to pick more ‘useful’ feedback
techniques in Vietnamese high school classrooms, as well as Vietnamse classroom
in general. Future research can consider Kim and Han (2015), who suggest
examining the emotional components of each type of feedback and comparing the
accuracy and retention between them.

VIII. Conclusion
In the context of one Hanoi high schoolt, capable learners typically prefer recasts
and elicitation, which to them can promote their fluency and independence, while
beginners prefer explicit correction which they think gives them instant clarity and
structure. Educators should consider students’ attitudes and try to a balance
between techniques that promote precision and those that encourage engagement
and self-correction.
Future studies can expand on these findings to give greater and insights. For
example, researchers can increase the sample size and diversify the demographics
(e.g. based on nationality, attitudes towards learning, learning style, personality,
etc.). Secondly, research can dig deeper into the distinct cultural features of
Vietnamese classrooms. For example, the Confucian philosophy of education, which
focuses on hierarchy, might have an effect on both students' attitudes towards
certain OCFs. Lastly, it is crucial to investigate how teachers' and students' OCF
preferences impact the long-term effectiveness of English language instruction. It is
possible the mismatches in students’ and teachers’ OCF preference can cause
certains perks or damages that should be looked into to ensure quality learning. By
expanding this research, researchers can add in more into the gap of knowledge of
OCF usage in Vietnam.