4.4 Article

Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers

Journal

LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 137-167

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820931897

Keywords

beliefs; correction; corrective feedback; practices; Vietnam; young learners

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the beliefs and practices of Vietnamese EFL teachers regarding oral corrective feedback. The findings show that teachers prioritize correcting pronunciation errors and prefer using prompts for feedback, although they predominantly use didactic recasts in practice. The observed discrepancies may be influenced by contextual factors and different sets of beliefs.
This study investigates Vietnamese EFL teachers' beliefs and practices regarding oral corrective feedback, exploring and seeking to explain some of the relationships between beliefs and classroom practices. Data were collected in primary schools in Vietnam, and consist of 24 classroom observations and interviews with six teachers. Overall, the teachers showed high levels of awareness of the benefits of oral corrective feedback. They nominated pronunciation errors as the most important target for correction in the primary context. In practice, although pronunciation and grammar accounted for the majority of the total errors, leading to the majority of total feedback moves, the frequency of feedback per error was much higher for vocabulary errors. Prompts were reported by teachers to be more effective and more favourable than reformulations, but this preference was not reflected in the classroom observations, in which a large number of didactic recasts were used. The observed discrepancies are interpreted in relation to contextual factors and the influence of different sets of beliefs on practices. It was also noted that the linguistic realizations of these teachers' feedback moves contained some inaccuracies. Implications for educational practice are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available