Professional Project in TESOL/FLT PG (11394), Vietnam Period 4 2024, HANU

[INTENSIVE]

Assessment item 3: Final research paper

Student: Nguyen Dieu Hoa
Student ID: u3278524
Word count: 3439 words (Appendices not included)

Learners Attitudes Toward Teachers' Corrective Feedback in a Hanoi High School

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of Hanoi high school students toward
oral corrective feedback (OCF) in English lessons. It looks at how different approaches impact
motivation, accuracy, and engagement as well as whether teachers' feedback techniques align
with students' preferences. Two teachers and twenty senior students participated in surveys and
classroom observations to gather data. According to the results, students prefer recasts and
metalinguistic feedback, whereas the most popular forms of feedback are explicit correction and
elicitation. Differences according to proficiency levels are additionally pointed out in the study.
While more experienced students react better to subtle cues that promote self-correction,
beginner learners prefer straightforward corrections. Recasts and elicitation encouraged
involvement and fluency, while explicit correction increased accuracy. The results highlight the
necessity of feedback strategies that take cultural sensitivity into account in addition to the
demands of the learners. This study offers useful advice for improving second language
learning instruction.

I. Introduction

Oral corrective feedback (OCF) is essential in second language acquisition (SLA) because it
helps students identify and rectify linguistic faults, which in turn promotes learning and growth.
Depending on preferences, error types, and educational circumstances, learners are impacted
differently by several forms of OCF, including elicitation, recasts, and explicit correction (Lyster
& Mori, 2006). Although the significance of OCF in SLA has been extensively studied, fewer
studies have looked at learners' viewpoints in particular cultural and educational contexts, like
Vietnam. Examining these viewpoints can show how cultural variables affect the efficiency of
feedback in Vietnamese classrooms, where indirect communication and respect for instructors
are strongly valued. By investigating Vietnamese learners' perceptions toward OCF, this study
fills this knowledge gap and informs more culturally appropriate teaching methods.

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 the alignment between teachers' feedback approaches and students'
choices. According to research, OCF may be less effective if learner expectations and instructor
feedback don't align, which could cause dissatisfaction or disengagement (Schulz, 2001).
Therefore, boosting the impact of OCF requires an understanding of how students, especially
high school students, view it.

This study examines how students' motivation, engagement, and language learning outcomes
are affected by whether or not the OCF tactics frequently employed in a Hanoi high school fit
their preferences. Additionally, it looks at whether students' choices match their true learning
needs, offering guidance on how to modify feedback procedures to better assist students'
development.

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 vary. For instance,
explicit correction is helpful for increasing accuracy because it clearly identifies mistakes and
gives the 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 adult learners or general language acquisition situations
(Karimi & Asadnia, 2015).

Explicit correction is frequently the preferred technique for resolving faults in Vietnam's teacher-
centered educational system (Tran & Nguyen, 2020). Although this method might make things
clearer, 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).
Particularly for high school students, who might be reluctant to express their preferences or
seek clarification, a misalignment between teachers' feedback techniques and students'
expectations can result in decreased motivation, disengagement, and lost learning opportunities
(Karimi & Asadnia, 2015).

Students' reactions to feedback are significantly influenced by cultural influences as well.

Students may be less inclined to contest or inquire about feedback in teacher-centered
classrooms in Vietnam, even if it doesn't suit their tastes. Their self-esteem, drive, and general
learning results may be impacted by this dynamic (Schulz, 2001; Tran & Nguyen, 2020). Few
studies have examined whether these preferences hold true for high school students, who might
still need more structured support, even though research has indicated that Vietnamese college
students react positively to feedback styles that encourage autonomy, such as elicitation and
metalinguistic feedback (Tran & Nguyen, 2020).

This discrepancy between students' choices and teachers' feedback methods emphasizes the
need for more adaptable and culturally sensitive OCF strategies. According to Shahidzade
(2017), in order to improve classroom practices, effective feedback mechanisms must strike a
balance between the demands of students and cultural sensitivity. By investigating the kinds of
OCF frequently utilized in Hanoi high schools and determining whether or not they suit students'
interests, this study seeks to close these gaps. 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 and
assisting Vietnamese high school students to improve their language proficiency in encouraging
and adaptable learning settings.

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, including means and
standard deviations.

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 checklist caught
teachers' oral corrective feedback (OCF) tactics. Additionally, it helped in identifying any
ambiguous language or perplexing components in the checklist or questions, enabling revisions
prior to the entire study. Minor changes were made in light of the results, such as adding
examples to the questionnaire to help students comprehend it and defining OCF techniques
more precisely.

4. Data Collection

4.1. Classroom Observation

The purpose of the classroom observation is to record the kinds and quantities of oral corrective
feedback (OCF) that teachers employ when teaching English. Using a systematic checklist
(Appendix 1) based on recognized OCF categories, the researcher will observe two 45-minute
high school sessions with ten students each (Ellis, 2009; Lyster & Saito, 2010). To collect
baseline information on instructors' OCF preferences, the observation will be conducted at the
start of the study. Every instance of OCF that the instructor provides will be noted by the
researcher during the observation, who will classify it using the checklist and keep track of its
frequency in a table. The researcher will also record the students' responses to the feedback
and also pay particular attention to their facial expressions and the precision of their answers
after the correction.

4.2. Student Questionnaire

The student questionnaire (Appendix 2) collects quantitative data on learners' preferences and
attitudes toward various corrective feedback (OCF) types. It has two sections: multiple-choice
questions to identify preferred OCF types (e.g., explicit correction, recasts, elicitation) and
Likert-scale questions to rate attitudes from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."The results
(Appendix 4) aim to provide insights into students' favored OCF types and their perceptions of
teacher feedback.

4.3. Data Analysis

The data gathered from classroom observations and student questionnaires will be examined
using the quantitative technique to provide a clear picture of how instructor practices, student
preferences, and the effectiveness of various OCF kinds match.
During classroom observations, the frequency of each OCF type used by teachers will be
recorded. The accuracy of the students' answers following comments will also be tracked in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of each approach. In the analysis process, feedback
categories will then be ranked based on the number of correct responses they produce.
Additionally, student engagement will be evaluated and categorized as high, moderate, or poor
in order to illustrate how different OCF strategies impact participation.

In order to determine demographics like gender and competency levels based on recent GPA,
student surveys will be examined. Feedback preferences will be evaluated in several important
language domains, such as grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, politeness, and
message clarity. After which, patterns based on competence levels will be investigated, and
preferred feedback techniques for each skill will be emphasized. In order to compare attitudes
toward various OCF kinds across competency levels, responses to Likert-scale questions will be
averaged.

Finally, a cross-analysis will compare the effectiveness of each OCF method—measured by

accuracy and engagement—with students’ self-reported preferences. This comparison will
determine 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.

5. Anticipated Results

The study anticipates that Vietnamese high school students will 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 its focus 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 fall 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.

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 fundamental capabilities.

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 understand standards and patterns. Lower engagement with this strategy, however,
suggests the possibility that it works better for planned learning activities than for unplanned
encounters. 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. In order 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.
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. The gap between theory and
practice would be further reduced with such efforts, leading to more useful feedback techniques
that could be used both within and outside of Vietnamese classrooms. As suggested by Kim
and Han (2015), additionally examining the emotional components of the feedback and
comparing the accuracy and retention of implicit and explicit methods can also be helpful.

The results demonstrate how crucial it is to modify feedback methods according to students' skill
levels and cultural contexts. Teachers should view feedback as a dynamic process that is
constantly evolving rather of being fixed in a predetermined manner. Teachers can establish a
dynamic and supportive learning environment that meets students' developmental and cultural
needs by carefully balancing tactics that promote accuracy and autonomy.

VIII. Conclusion

This study investigated how high school students in Vietnam view oral corrective feedback
(OCF) and whether or not the methods used by teachers suit their learning requirements and
preferences. The results demonstrated that while more experienced learners typically favor
recasts and elicitation, which promote fluency and independence, explicit correction is quite
helpful for novices, offering clarity and structure. These findings highlight the necessity for
educators to have a flexible attitude, finding a balance between techniques that promote
precision and those that encourage engagement and self-correction.

Further research is required to examine teachers' perspectives, larger sample sizes, and the
long-term impact of feedback strategies on learning outcomes. In the end, effective OCF is not
universal; instead, it requires culturally responsive and developmentally appropriate methods
that evolve with students’ progress, helping them build confidence and competence in language
learning. Students initially rely on direct feedback, but as proficiency improves, they prefer more
indirect methods, suggesting a growing need for autonomy and critical thinking. The study
additionally showed the influence of cultural norms on feedback preferences, reflecting
Vietnam's teacher-centered education system.
 Appendices

Appendix 1: Classroom Observation Form

Observation Details Class Information

Date of Observation

Class Level

Teacher's Name

Lesson Topic

Number of Students

Section 1: Frequency of OCF usage

Corrective Feedback Checklist

 OCF Type Description Frequency
(Tick Count)

Explicit Correction Teacher directly provides the correct form.

Recast Teacher reformulates the student’s error without

direct indication.

Elicitation Teacher prompts the student to self-correct.

Metalinguistic Teacher provides comments or questions about the

Feedback error without correcting it.

Clarification Teacher indicates that the student's utterance was

Request not understood and asks for clarification.

Repetition Teacher repeats the student's error with a

questioning intonation.

Section 2: Student Reaction

For each observed instance of feedback, record:

1. Facial Expression:
○ Positive (e.g., smiles, nods, looks relaxed).
○ Neutral (e.g., no visible change, neutral face).
○ Negative (e.g., frowns, confusion, disengaged look).
2. Corrective Response:
○ Did the student provide the correct answer after the feedback? (Yes/No)
3. Engagement Level:
○ High (eager to participate, actively responds).
○ Moderate (responsive but hesitant).
○ Low (minimal response, disengaged).

Student reaction checklist

Feedback Types of Facial Correct Engagement Additional

Instance feedback expression answer (Y/N) level notes

3
 4

….

Appendix 2: Student Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in this survey. The purpose of this research is to explore students'
and teachers' perspectives on Oral Corrective Feedback (OCF) in a high school English
learning context. Your responses are incredibly valuable and will contribute to a better
understanding of teaching and learning practices.

Please note that:

● Your responses will remain strictly confidential and will only be used for the
purposes of this research.
● All data will be anonymized, and no personally identifiable information will be shared or
disclosed.

Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may choose to skip any question or withdraw
from the survey at any time. Thank you for your time and honesty.

Section 1: Personal Information

1. Gender:
 ● Male
● Female
● Other
2. What was your last term’s English GPA?
● 0.0 – 2.9: Beginner
● 3.0 – 4.9: Elementary
● 5.0 – 6.4: Lower Intermediate
● 6.5 – 7.9: Intermediate
● 8.0 – 8.9: Upper Intermediate
● 9.0 – 10.0: High Upper Intermediate

Section 2: Multiple-Choice Questions

Instructions: Choose your preferred types of corrective feedback (OCF) for each language skill
listed below. You can choose more than one

1. When you make a grammar mistake, how do you prefer to be corrected?

E.g. You said ‘Yesterday I go to the park’. The correct answer should be ‘Yesterday I went to
the park’

● Explicit Correction: The teacher directly tells you the correct answer (e.g., "No, it
should be 'went,' not 'go'.").
● Recast: The teacher repeats what you said in a correct manner without pointing out the
mistake (e.g., "Yes, yesterday I went to the park").
● Elicitation: The teacher gives you a chance to correct yourself (e.g., "I... what? Can
you fix that?").
● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint or asks a question about the rule
(e.g., "What’s the past tense of 'go'?").
● Clarification Request: The teacher asks you to explain because your sentence was
unclear (e.g., "What do you mean by that?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats your mistake with emphasis to show you made an
error (e.g., "Yesterday I GO to the park?").

2. When you make a pronunciation mistake, how do you prefer to be corrected?

E.g. You say ‘examPLE’, putting the stress in the third syllable. The correct answer should be
‘exAMple’, which means the stress should be in the second syllable

● Explicit Correction: The teacher tells you the correct pronunciation directly (e.g., "It’s
pronounced 'ex-AM-ple,' not 'examPLE'.").
● Recast: The teacher repeats the word correctly without pointing out the mistake (e.g.,
"Yes, that’s a good eXAMple").
● Elicitation: The teacher asks you to try saying it again (e.g., "Try saying that word
again please").
 ● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint about pronunciation (e.g.,
"Remember, for the word eXAMple, the stress is on the second syllable.").
● Clarification Request: The teacher asks you to repeat yourself because they didn’t
understand (e.g., "Sorry, could you say that again?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats your mispronounced word to show there was an error
(e.g., "You said 'ExamPLE'?").

3. When you use the wrong vocabulary word, how do you prefer to be corrected?

E.g. You say: ‘I eat kitchen for dinner’. The correct answer should be: ‘I eat chicken for dinner’

● Explicit Correction: The teacher directly tells you the right word (e.g., "You mean
'chicken,' not 'kitchen'.").
● Recast: The teacher subtly corrects you by using the right word (e.g., "Yes, I like
chicken too.").
● Elicitation: The teacher asks you to think of the correct word (e.g., "Are you sure that's
the right word?").
● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint about the word choice (e.g., "One is
a place, and the other is food. Which one do you mean?").
● Clarification Request: The teacher asks what you meant because the word didn’t fit
(e.g., "What do you mean by 'kitchen'?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats your incorrect word with emphasis (e.g., "You said
'kitchen'?").

4. If you struggle with speaking fluency (e.g., hesitating or pausing often), how do you
prefer to be supported?

E.g. You are talking about your favorite sport, football, but you can only say ‘Like football’

● Explicit Correction: The teacher tells you what needs to be improved (e.g., "the
sentence you said doesn’t have a subject").
● Recast: The teacher reformulates your sentence fluently (e.g., "So, you want to say that
you enjoy playing football.").
● Elicitation: The teacher encourages you to keep talking and correct yourself (e.g., "Go
on, say more about why you like football!").
● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint or advice (e.g., "Try to use
connecting words like 'and' or 'because' to talk more").
● Clarification Request: The teacher asks you to clarify your sentence (e.g., "Can you
say that again more clearly?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats part of your sentence with emphasis (e.g., "Like
football, ok... who likes it?").

5. When you use an inappropriate expression, how do you prefer to be corrected?

E.g. You are in a role-play. You are an employee, and your mate is your boss. To say hello, you
say ‘hey boss’. The answer should be more formal, such as ‘good morning sir.’

● Explicit Correction: The teacher directly tells me the correct, more appropriate
expression (e.g., "You should say 'Good morning' instead of 'Hey' in this context.").
● Recast: The teacher subtly repeats or rephrases my sentence correctly (e.g., "Yes,
good morning. How can I help you?").
● Elicitation: The teacher prompts me to think of a more appropriate phrase (e.g., "Is that
the best way to greet your boss, someone that you respect?").
● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint or asks about the social rule (e.g.,
"How would greeting your boss be different from greeting your friends?").
● Clarification Request: The teacher asks for clarification, signaling that my response
might be inappropriate (e.g., "Could you repeat that? Are you sure that's the right way to
say it here?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats the inappropriate phrase with emphasis, indicating it
needs correction (e.g., "You said, 'Hey'?").

6. When you misunderstand what someone says in a conversation, how do you prefer to
be corrected?

E.g. Your teacher asks you ‘Do you like the movie Harry Potter?’ and you answer ‘Yes, I saw it’.
The answer should be about whether you like the movie or not.

● Explicit Correction: The teacher directly tells me what I misunderstood and provides
the correct response (e.g., "No, I asked if you liked the movie, not if you saw it.").
● Recast: The teacher repeats my response with the correct information subtly included
(e.g., "Yes, I also liked the movie Harry Potter.").
● Elicitation: The teacher prompts me to listen again and correct myself (e.g., "Listen
carefully. What did I ask about?").
● Metalinguistic Feedback: The teacher gives a hint or asks a question about the content
(e.g., "Think about the question again. Was it about seeing the movie or liking it?").
● Clarification Request: The teacher signals that my response was incorrect by asking
me to clarify (e.g., "What do you mean? Did you misunderstand the question?").
● Repetition: The teacher repeats my incorrect response with emphasis (e.g., "You said
you saw it? I asked if you liked it.").

Section 3: Likert-Scale Questions

Instructions: Please rate your level of agreement with each statement below on a scale from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
I feel embarrassed when my ● ● ● ● ●
teacher points out my mistakes
in front of the whole class
(explicit correction).

I feel anxious when the teacher ● ● ● ● ●

interrupts me to correct my
speaking fluency issues
immediately. (explicit feedback)

I believe that being corrected ● ● ● ● ●

directly helps me learn faster,
even if it feels uncomfortable.
(explicit feedback)

I appreciate it when my teacher ● ● ● ● ●

corrects me subtly without
interrupting the flow of
conversation (recasts).

I find it helpful when my teacher ● ● ● ● ●

gives me a chance to correct
myself (elicitation).

I find it easier to remember my ● ● ● ● ●

mistakes after the lesson when
the teacher corrects me
indirectly (e.g., using recasts or
repetition).

I get frustrated when the teacher ● ● ● ● ●

only hints at the mistake without
giving me the correct answer
immediately (metalinguistic
feedback).

I prefer it when the teacher asks ● ● ● ● ●

me to clarify my answer rather
than directly correcting me
(clarification request).
I like it when the teacher repeats ● ● ● ● ●
my mistake with emphasis,
helping me notice it (repetition).

I feel motivated to improve when ● ● ● ● ●

the teacher gives me a chance
to self-correct my mistakes.
(Recast, Elicitation,
Metalinguistic, Clarification,
Repetition) .

I feel frustrated when my ● ● ● ● ●

teacher corrects me in a way
that I don’t like

I believe that being corrected in ● ● ● ● ●

a way that is suitable to my
preference can help me improve

I believe that the tone of voice ● ● ● ● ●

and/or facial expression of the
teacher when correcting my
mistakes affects my
performance
Appendix 3: Classroom Observation Form Results

Classroom Observation Form 1 Result

Observation Details Class Information

Date of Observation 25/11

Class Level Grade 12

Teacher's Name Ms. Lam

Lesson Topic Unit 4: Urbanisation

Material Pearson’s Global Success for Grade 12

Number of Students 10

Duration 45 minutes

Section 1: Frequency of OCF usage

Corrective Feedback Checklist

OCF Type Description Frequency

(Tick Count)

Explicit Correction Teacher directly provides the correct form. 7

Recast Teacher reformulates the student’s error without 0
direct indication.

Elicitation Teacher prompts the student to self-correct. 2

Metalinguistic Teacher provides comments or questions about the 5

Feedback error without correcting it.

Clarification Teacher indicates that the student's utterance was 0

Request not understood and asks for clarification.

Repetition Teacher repeats the student's error with a 1

questioning intonation.

Section 2: Student Reaction

For each observed instance of feedback, record:

4. Facial Expression:
○ Positive (e.g., smiles, nods, looks relaxed).
○ Neutral (e.g., no visible change, neutral face).
○ Negative (e.g., frowns, confusion, disengaged look).
5. Corrective Response:
○ Did the student provide the correct answer after the feedback? (Yes/No)
6. Engagement Level:
○ High (eager to participate, actively responds).
○ Moderate (responsive but hesitant).
○ Low (minimal response, disengaged).

Student reaction checklist

Feedback Types of Facial Correct Engagement Additional

Instance feedback expression answer (Y/N) level notes

1 Explicit Negative Y Low

Correction

2 Explicit Neutral Y Low

Correction

3 Metalinguistic Neutral Y Low

Feedback

4 Explicit Positive Y Moderate

 Correction

5 Repetition Positive Y High

6 Explicit Negative Y Low Distracted

Correction student

7 Metalinguistic Neutral N Low

Feedback

8 Explicit Neutral Y Moderate

Correction

9 Explicit Neutral Y Moderate

Correction

10 Elicitation Neutral Y High

11 Metalinguistic Negative N Low Distracted

Feedback student

12 Explicit Neutral Y High

Correction

13 Metalinguistic Positive Y High

Feedback

14 Elicitation Positive Y Moderate

15 Metalinguistic Positive Y Moderate

Feedback

Classroom Observation Form 2 Result

Observation Details Class Information

Date of Observation 25/11

Class Level Grade 12

Teacher's Name Ms. Chi

Lesson Topic Unit 4: Urbanisation

Material Pearson’s Global Success for Grade 12

Number of Students 10

Section 1: Frequency of OCF usage

Corrective Feedback Checklist

OCF Type Description Frequency

(Tick Count)

Explicit Correction Teacher directly provides the correct form. 5

Recast Teacher reformulates the student’s error without 8

direct indication.

Elicitation Teacher prompts the student to self-correct. 8

Metalinguistic Teacher provides comments or questions about the 1

Feedback error without correcting it.

Clarification Teacher indicates that the student's utterance was 2

Request not understood and asks for clarification.

Repetition Teacher repeats the student's error with a 1

questioning intonation.

Section 2: Student Reaction

For each observed instance of feedback, record:

7. Facial Expression:
○ Positive (e.g., smiles, nods, looks relaxed).
○ Neutral (e.g., no visible change, neutral face).
○ Negative (e.g., frowns, confusion, disengaged look).
8. Corrective Response:
○ Did the student provide the correct answer after the feedback? (Yes/No)
9. Engagement Level:
○ High (eager to participate, actively responds).
○ Moderate (responsive but hesitant).
○ Low (minimal response, disengaged).

Student reaction checklist

Feedback Types of Facial Correct Engagement Additional

Instance feedback expression answer (Y/N) level notes

1 Recast Neutral Y Moderate

2 Elicitation Positive Y Moderate

3 Recast Neutral Y Moderate

4 Recast Neutral Y Moderate

5 Recast Positive Y High

6 Elicitation Neutral Y Moderate

7 Elicitation Neutral Y Moderate

8 Recast Positive Y High

9 Explicit Positive Y Moderate

Correction

10 Elicitation Neutral Y High

11 Elicitation Positive N Moderate A sequence

that was
12 Clarification Neutral N Low done to
Request correct one
student
13 Explicit Negative Y Low
Correction

14 Recast Neutral Y Moderate

15 Elicitation Positive N Low A sequence

that was
16 Clarification Negative N Low done to
Request correct one
student
17 Explicit Positive Y Low
Correction

18 Recast Neutral Y Moderate

19 Elicitation Positive Y High

20 Explicit Positive Y Moderate

Correction

21 Recast Neutral Y High

22 Elicitation Neutral Y High

 23 Metalinguistic Positive N Moderate
Feedback

24 Repetition Neutral N Low A sequence

that was
25 Explicit Neutral Y Moderate done to
Correction correct one
student

Run out of
time

Appendix 4: Students’ Survey Answers and Calculations

This link consists of the data gathered from the survey, which cannot be visually displayed here
due to the size
Appendix 5: Calculations in The Research

This link consists of the calculations made from the survey, which cannot be visually displayed
here due to the size
Appendix 6: Participant Information Form & Consent Form
 References

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and the role of learners' uptake in SLA. In Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 540-560). Routledge.

Ellis, R., & Saito, K. (2010). The role of recasts in second language acquisition. In J. Bitchener
(Ed.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 97-115). Routledge.

Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, M. (2015). Learners' preferences for corrective feedback: An
investigation of high school learners in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(2),
448-456. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0602.22

Kim, Y., & Han, Z. H. (2015). The effectiveness of explicit and implicit corrective feedback in
language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 145-168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814564947

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language

Learning, 60(2), 409-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional effectiveness: A
comparison of recasts and clarification requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(4), 491-537. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060222

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral corrective feedback in 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/S026144481200036X

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). The role of interaction in second language learning: A meta-
analysis of studies examining second language learners' production. The Modern Language
Journal, 91(5), 427-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00671.x

Schulz, R. A. (2001). The effects of feedback on students' language learning: A review of the
literature. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4), 537-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-
7902.00124

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences, and second language learning.
The Handbook of Language Teaching, 597-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.ch30

Shahidzade, S. (2017). The role of cultural factors in corrective feedback in language learning.
Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 452-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816684323

Tran, H., & Nguyen, D. T. (2020). The impact of feedback practices on Vietnamese language
learners’ engagement: A case study. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 12(1), 56-
71. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2020/v12i130167
Roothooft, H. (2014). The relationship between feedback and language learning: Theory and
practice. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 93-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlet.2014.03.001