4.4 Article

Corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices of Vietnamese primary EFL teachers

期刊

LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 137-167

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820931897

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据