The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance.

Nhận Làm Báo Cáo Thực Tập Thuê Trọn Gói – Điểm Cao
Zalo/Tele Nhắn Tin Báo Giá : 0909.232.620
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
DUY TAN UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
GRADUATION PAPER
NGƯU THỊ THÙY DƯƠNG
THE EFFECT OF IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK
VERSUS DELAYED FEEDBACK ON EFL
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
Code : …….
Course : ……..
HCHC – JULY 2020
THE
EFFECT
OF
IMMEDIATE
FEEDBACK
VERSUS
DELAYED
FEEDBACK
ON
EFL
STUDENTS’
SPEAKING
PERFORMANCE

Nhận Làm Báo Cáo Thực Tập Thuê Trọn Gói – Điểm Cao
Zalo/Tele Nhắn Tin Báo Giá : 0909.232.620
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
DUY TAN UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
GRADUATION PAPER
THE EFFECT OF IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK
VERSUS DELAYED FEEDBACK ON EFL
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
Code : …….
Course : ……..
SUPERVISOR……
STUDENT : NGƯU THỊ THÙY DƯƠNG
HCHC – JULY 2020

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
1.1 Rationale.......................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims of the study..........................................................................................2
1.3 Research questions .......................................................................................2
1.4 Scope of the study ........................................................................................3
1.5 Method of the study......................................................................................3
1.6 Thesis design ................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.....................................................3
2.1 Speaking skill ...............................................................................................4
2.1.1 Definition of the speaking skill ........................................................4
2.1.2 Elements of speaking skill................................................................5
2.1.3 Speaking competence vs speaking performance ..............................6
2.2 Assessing speaking ability............................................................................7
2.2.1 Indicators of speaking ability ...........................................................7
2.2.2 Fluency vs. accuracy in speaking assessment ..................................7
2.2.3 Rubrics for assessing EFL speaking ability......................................8
2.3 Teaching Speaking......................................................................................10
2.3.1 Teaching L1 speaking skill .............................................................10
2.3.2 Teaching speaking to EFL learners.................................................11
2.3.2.1 General outline of a speaking lesson ..................................11
2.3.2.2 Common techniques and methods ......................................11
2.4 Feedback in teaching..................................................................................14
2.4.1 Overview of feedback in teaching..................................................14
2.4.2 Definition of feedback in language teaching..................................15
2.4.3 Roles of feedback in language teaching .........................................16
2.4.4 Types of feedback in language teaching.........................................16
2.4.4.1 Immediate feedback............................................................16
2.4.4.2 Delayed feedback................................................................17
2.5 Feedback in EFL speaking class.................................................................17
2.5.1 Immediate feedback in teaching speaking......................................17
2.5.2 Delayed feedback in teaching speaking..........................................18

iv
2.5.3 Immediate feedback vs. delayed feedback in teaching speaking ...18
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................20
3.1 Research questions .....................................................................................20
3.2 Participants .................................................................................................20
3.3 Materials.....................................................................................................21
3.3.1 The general English test..................................................................21
3.3.2 Pre-test and Post-test.......................................................................23
3.3.3 Textbook .........................................................................................25
3.3.4 Lesson plans....................................................................................26
3.4 Procedure....................................................................................................28
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.....................................................29
4.1 Results ........................................................................................................29
4.1.1 General English results...................................................................29
4.1.2 Pre-test results.................................................................................30
4.1.2.1 Fluency................................................................................30
4.1.2.2 Accuracy .............................................................................31
4.1.3 Post-test results ...............................................................................34
4.1.3.1 Fluency................................................................................34
4.1.3.2 Accuracy .............................................................................35
4.1.5 The two group’s speaking performance during the treatment........37
4.1.5.1 Fluency................................................................................37
4.1.5.2 Accuracy .............................................................................40
4.2 Discussion...................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION.................................................................................44
5.1 Conclusion..................................................................................................49
5.2 Limitations..................................................................................................50
5.3 Further research..........................................................................................51

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Speaking Assessment Rubric ......................................................................9
Table 3.1 The students’ Score in general English test...............................................22
Table 3.2 Initial fluency and accuracy ability in the course by the participants (P) of
group 1.......................................................................................................................24
Table 3.3 Initial fluency and accuracy ability in the course by the participants (P) of
group 2.......................................................................................................................25
Table 3.4 The speaking topics of sixteen units in Tieng Anh 11...............................26
Table 3.1 Time proportion for the speaking lessons .................................................28
Table 4.1 The average total scores and standard deviations of general English test in
the two experimental groups .....................................................................................29
Table 4.3 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental group’s results on
accuracy on the pre-test.............................................................................................32
Table 4.4 Means and standard deviations of types of errors on the pre-test.............33
Table 4.5 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental groups’ results on
fluency on the post-test .............................................................................................34
Table 4.6 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental groups’ results on
accuracy on the post-test...........................................................................................35
Table 4.7 Means and standard deviations of types of errors on the post-test ...........37
Table 4.15 Means and standard deviations of the two groups’ speaking fluency
during the treatment ..................................................................................................37
Table 4.16 Mean scores in the 6 sessions by all participants (P)..............................38
Table 4.17 The increase difference between the last session scores and the first
session scores by all participants (p) in both groups.................................................39
Table 4.18 Means and standard deviations of the two groups’ speaking accuracy
during the treatment ..................................................................................................40
Table 4.19 Mean scores in the 6 sessions by all participants (P).............................41
Table 4.20 Mean scores of all participants for both groups......................................41

vi
Table 4.21 Comparison of the two groups’ results on types of errors ......................42
session scores by all participants (P) in both groups ................................................43
Table 4.23 Summary of the increase levels of all participants for both groups........43
Table 4.24 Results by the participant who made improvement ................................44
Table 4.25 Means and standard deviations of the first three tests and the last three
tests of the participant A7..........................................................................................45
Table 4.26 Results by the participants who made no improvement in either the last
minus 1st
score...........................................................................................................46
Table 4.27 Means and standard deviations of the two participants B5 and B6 on the
first three tests and the last three tests.......................................................................46
Table 4.28 Means and standard deviations of the two participants A4 and B13 on
the first three tests and the last three tests.................................................................48

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Chart of the general English test’s scores for both groups......................29
Figure 4.2 Pie chart of the general English test’s scores for both groups.................29
Figure 4.3 Chart of the pre-test’s results on fluency for both groups......................31
Figure 4.4 Pie chart of pre-test’s results on fluency for both groups........................31
Figure 4.5 Chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups...........................32
Figure 4.6 Pie chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups .....................33
Figure 4.7 Chart of post-test’s results on fluency for both groups ..........................34
Figure 4.8 Pie chart of post-test’s results on fluency for both groups ......................35
Figure 4.9 Chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups..........................36
Figure 4.10 Pie chart of post-test’s results on accuracy for both groups..................36
Figure 4.13 Progress chart of participant A7/increase ..............................................45
Figure 4.14 Progress chart of participants B5 and B6/decrease ...............................46
Figure 4.15 Progress chart of participant A4 and B13/ increase..............................48

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale
According to Brown and Yule (1983), spoken language production is often
considered one of the most difficult aspects of language learning. In reality, many
language learners find it difficult to express themselves in spoken language in the
target language. Ur (1996) stated that speaking seems to be the most important skill
of all the four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) because people who
know a language are usually referred to as speakers of that language. The major
goal of all English language teaching should be to give learners the ability to use
English effectively, fluently and accurately in communication (Davies & Pearse,
1998). However, not all language learners after many years studying English can
communicate fluently and accurately because they lack necessary knowledge.
In attempts to help teachers train their students speak better, numerous
researchers such as Lightbown and Spada (1999), Swain (1985), Long (1990)
focused on the ways of giving feedback on students’ speaking performance. Swain
(1985) also suggested that treatment of errors helps students learn better, whether
the feedback is explicit or implicit. Recasts as a way to provide learners with
feedback have also drawn considerable attention. Long (1990) believes feedback
can facilitate learning a second language. The findings of a host of other researchers
are also in line with what Long says. Some though have focused on the different
modes of corrective feedback and wished to find out which of the different methods
of giving feedback employed by the teacher is/are more fruitful.
In fact, English teaching and learning has been paid much attention to, which
is shown by remarkable changes in curriculum as well as teaching methods i.e. the
introduction of speaking skill in the new textbook to Lower Secondary, Upper
Secondary schools and the adoption of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
which “emphasizes communicative competence” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p.35).
As the matter of fact, speaking skill, “the most important aspect of learning a
second language” (Nunan, 1989, p.14), is still a challenge for Vietnamese learners.
Although teachers, in CLT approach, no longer play a dominant role in class, their
guidance and support have always been of beneficial help to students. Especially,

2
teachers’ feedback provision in response to students’ mistakes as well as good
performance is of significant importance. Considered, “an integral part of the
lesson” (Nguyen, 2009, p.4), teacher’s feedback is always in bad need, like
Fanselow (1987, p. 267) wrote “to teach is to provide feedback”. Teachers’
feedback falls into written and oral type and it can be delivered with or without
delay. Notably, oral feedback is the most common occurrence in classroom and
often employed in speaking lessons. Hence, studying on immediate and delayed oral
feedback is very practical. In addition, providing the correct answer as feedback
after students’ response further improve students’ speaking performance (Butler,
Karpicke, & Roediger, 2007; Butler, Karpicke, & Roediger, 2008; Butler &
Roediger, 2008). The correct answer to a question may be presented immediately
after the question is answered or after a subsequent delay.
Even though teachers’ feedback has been the subject of numerous studies,
most of them tackled the matter of immediate feedback only or delayed feedback
only. Work on contrasting immediate feedback versus delayed feedback in speaking
lessons is quite small in number. This indicates a need to examine the effect of
immediate feedback versus delayed feedback on EFL students’ speaking
performance. The study would make a small contribution to teaching and learning
English as a foreign language in Vietnam.
1.2 Aims of the study
This study aims at finding out the effectiveness of the two ways of giving
feedback to students’ mistakes in speaking lessons: immediate feedback and
delayed feedback. The findings of the research are expected to enrich the literature
in feedback in language teaching and EFL teachers to prove their teaching quality.
1.3 Research questions
The study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1) How does immediate feedback, compared to delayed feedback, affect EFL high
school students’ speaking fluency?
2) How does delayed feedback, compared to delayed feedback, affect EFL high
school students’ speaking accuracy?

3
1.4 Scope of the study
The study only focused on using immediate and delayed feedback to improve
English speaking skills for 11th
grade students at Le Quy Don High School in Ho
Chi Minh city. This study was set to investigate the effects of these two ways of
giving feedback on helping students to developing their speaking skill. Fluency and
accuracy are the two aspects examined in this study.
1.5 Method of the study
The main method employed in this study is experimental. All comments,
remarks, recommendations and conclusion were based on the data analysis. The
combination of different instruments used in this research helped to gain reliable
data.
1.6 Thesis design
The thesis consists of five chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Theoretical background
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion
Chapter 5: Conclusion

4
Chapter 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Speaking skill
2.1.1 Definition of the speaking skill
It cannot be denied that speaking is the vital skill and the key to
communication and seems much harder than other skills. English is spoken all over
the world as an international language for people’s interaction purpose. Without
speaking, communication will become as silent as a grave.
Different people use the term “speaking” in different ways. According to the
Oxford Dictionary of Current English (2009, p. 414), speaking is “the action of
conveying information or expressing one’s thoughts and feelings in spoken
language”. According to Burn and Joyce (1997), speaking is an interactive process
of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing
information. Its form and meaning are dependent on the context in which it occurs,
including the participants themselves, their collective experience, the physical
environment, and the purposes for speaking. Scheter (1999) defined speaking as to
utter words or articulate sounds, as human beings to express thought by words, as
the organs may be so obstructed that a man may not be able to speak. Chaney
(1998, p.13), however, considered speaking a process: “speaking is the process of
building and sharing meaning through the use of verbal or non-verbal symbols in a
variety of contexts”. Sharing the same viewpoint, Florez (1999, p. 1) added that
speaking is an “interactive” process, which consists of three main stages
“producing, receiving and processing information.” In language teaching and
learning, speaking is considered a skill to practice and master. In this light, Nunan
(2003, p. 48) put it that “speaking is the productive oral skill. It consists of
producing systematic verbal utterance to convey meaning.” Also considering
speaking as a skill, both Bygate (1987) and Cobuild (2007) reached the same
conclusion about the distinction between knowledge and skill in speaking lessons.
Bygate (1987, p. 3) considered speaking as crucial in the teaching of speaking.
Indeed, to be a good learner of speaking, studying knowledge of grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation, intonation, etc. is not enough but the skill to use this
knowledge to communicate successfully is indispensable. Cobuild (2007) stated that

5
speaking is also understood is the productive skill in the oral mode. It, like the oral
skills, is more complicated than it seems at first and involves more than just
pronouncing words.
In conclusion, there are different concepts of speaking, i.e. speaking as an
action, a process and a skill. In this study, the term “speaking” will be used to refer
to a skill related to language teaching and learning process.
2.1.2 Elements of speaking skill
Fluency and accuracy are two important aspects of speaking performance.
The term “fluency” is widely used in language pedagogy and “fluent” is regularly
appeared in language testing and assessment. It seems that the meaning of fluency is
easily understood, however fluency is a construct with various definition and
applied to reading, listening and writing as well as speaking. In oral production, its
relationship to specific aspects of speech production (pronunciation, intonation and
hesitation) is dependent upon the definition of fluency that one chooses to work
with. Hartmann and Stork (1976) pointed out “fluent” means a speaker is able to use
the correct structures of a language at normal speed, which means speaking
naturally meanwhile concentrating on the content delivery rather than the form or
structure of a language. Fillmore (1979, p. 93) defined four abilities that might be
subsumed under the term of fluency, the first of which is the ability to talk at length
with few pauses. The three other abilities include the ability to produce the
sentences coherently and semantically, the ability to have appropriate expressions in
a wide range of context, and finally is the ability to be creative and imaginative in
language use. Nation (1989) also provided three aspects of fluency: the speed and
flow of language production, the degree of control of language items i.e pausing,
rhythm, pronunciation and stress, and the way of content interrupting. So far, the
definition of fluency is developed into two main categories. One is called the
narrow approach (Lemon, 2000), which refers to the speaking speed and
smoothness of the language delivery. The other is the board approach (Kopenen &
Riggenback, 2000), which considers a wider area including semantic density,
appropriateness of expression, the language user’s creative ability and some further
issues in sociolinguistics. Nation (1997) further found that speaking fluency

6
development will improve the grammar accuracy, which is an additional
contribution to the development of speaking fluency. The second aspect of speaking
performance is accuracy. Accuracy is one of the most important criteria to measure
one’s linguistic ability and to shelter language users from communication
breakdowns. According to Richards (1992), accuracy concerns “the ability to
produce grammatically correct sentences.” (p. 31). In other words, accuracy in
language means grammatical accuracy only.
2.1.3 Speaking competence vs speaking performance
Manitoba (2009) showed that language competence is a term which includes
the linguistics or grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistics
competence and what might be called as textual competence. Language competence
refers to the knowledge of a language, cognitive aspect in learning a language, and
of course the ability to use that language to produce meaningful production and
language performance. In this light, Hemerka (2009, p. 15) believes that
competence is used to describe the learner´s capacity to produce a language.
Language performance can be realized by the meaningful of the students’
classroom activities, assignment and task as the implementation and application of
language competence they have as a result of learning the language grammatical
rule, structure and vocabulary.
If the reality tells that English competence becomes the main goal of English
teaching and learning with lack of special attention of English performance. This
term is specified for speaking skills, it would approximate the language theory
refers to the structural view (Richards & Rodgers, 1992, p. 17) that language is a
system of structurally related element of coding of meaning. The target language
learning is seen to be the mastery of element of this system which is generally
defined in terms of phonological units, grammatical units, grammatical operations
and lexical items (Jack Richard, 1992, p. 17). Chomsky’s competence theory/
linguistics theory deals primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge/ability the
speaker poses that enable them to produce the grammatically correct sentences in
language (Jack R. Richard 1992, p. 70). Chomsky’s theory of transformational
grammar proposed that fundamental theories of language derived from innate aspect

7
of the mind and the students learn underlie “competence”. These theories that
underline the English teaching as a foreign language focuses on the structure and
grammar as the essential competence which students should master first.
2.2 Assessing speaking ability
2.2.1 Indicators of speaking ability
Brown (2004, p. 141-142) indicated that there are five fundamental indicators
of speaking ability: imitation, oral language production, conservation response,
transactional language and oral production development.
Imitation accepted as one of the indicators of speaking ability. Imitation, in
general, is the ability to imitate a word or phrase or possibly a sentence (imitative)
exactly the same way as it has been done before.
Oral language production can be considered as an indicator of speaking
ability. Producing short stretches of oral language design demonstrates the
competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or phonological
relationship, for example, prosodic elements-intonation, stress, rhythm, juncture,
intensive ability (intensive).
Conservation response is the response of a very short conversation, standard
greetings and small talk, simple requests and comments, and the like (responsive).
Transactional language is defined as taking the two forms of either
transactional language which has the purpose of exchanging specific information, or
interpersonal exchanges which have the purpose of maintaining social relationships
(interactive).
Oral production development includes speeches, oral presentations, and story-
telling, during which the opportunity for oral interaction from listener is either
highly limited or ruled out together (extensive).
Language is of an acceptable level. Learners express themselves in utterances
that are relevant, easily comprehensible to each other, and of an acceptable level of
language accuracy.
2.2.2 Fluency vs. accuracy in speaking assessment
According to Hartley & Sporing (1999), testing speaking ability has become
one of the most important issues in language assessment since the role of speaking

8
ability has become more central in language teaching and learning. There are three
characteristics that distinguish performance assessments from other types of tests.
They are focused mainly on content. However, testing speaking is difficult and
cannot be assessed as easily as other language skills. It takes considerable time,
effort and training (Hughes, 2003). Despite the difficulty of evaluating speaking
tests, they should be designed, and administered regardless of how costly they
might be.
Obviously, accuracy is one of the most important criteria to measure one’s
linguistic ability and to shelter language users from communication breakdowns.
To evaluate the accuracy in speaking performance, students are supposed to
use correct grammar such as word order, tenses, tense agreement, etc. Especially,
they do not leave out articles, prepositions or difficult tenses.
In term of vocabulary, students have a range of vocabulary that corresponds to
the syllabus year list and uses words you have taught.
Moreover, students are required correct pronunciation so that most people can
understand what they speak.
Thornbury (2000) pointed out two criteria for assessing accuracy: number of
self-corrections, correct use of English (use of grammar, use of vocabulary).
Fluency is also used as a criterion to measure one’s speaking competence.
Speaking fluently means being able to communicate one’s ideas without having to
stop and think too much about what one is saying. Richards (1992, p.141) defined
that fluency as “the features which gave speech the qualities of being natural and
normal.”
2.2.3 Rubrics for assessing EFL speaking ability
With the aim of knowing the improvement of students’ speaking skills has
been made by the students after being treated by some problem sticks, their
speaking ability will be measured by speaking measurement adapted from Arthur
Hughes (2003) collaborating with FSI. There are five components with a rating
range from 1-6 with different weighting point from the lowest to the highest.
The speaking measurement contains of some component elaborated from
students’ skill including their pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and

9
comprehension.
Table 2.1 Speaking Assessment Rubric
Pronunciation
1 Pronunciation frequently unintelligible
2 Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make understanding
difficulty
3 Frequent repetition
4 Marked foreign accent and occasional mispronunciations which do not
interfere with understanding
5 No conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not be taken for a native
speaker
6 Native pronunciation, with no trace of foreign accent
Grammar
1 Grammar almost entirely inaccurate expert in stock phrases.
2 Constant error showing control of very few major patterns and fluently
preventing communication.
3 Frequent errors showing some major pattern uncontrolled and causing
occasional irritation and misunderstanding.
4 Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but no
weakness that the cause misunderstanding.
5 Few errors, with no patterns of failure.
6 No more than two errors during interview
Vocabulary
1 Vocabulary inadequate foe evens the simplest conversation.
2 Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas (time, food,
transportation, family, etc.)
3 Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary prevent
discussion of some common professional and social topics.
4 Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest; general
vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some

10
circumlocutions.
5 Professional vocabulary board and precise; general vocabulary adequate to
cope with complex practical problems and varied social situations.
6 Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of educates native
speakers
Fluency
1 Speech is so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually
impossible.
2 Speech is very slow and uneven except for shot or routine sentences.
3 Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky; sentences may be left
uncompleted.
4 Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused by
rephrasing and grouping for words.
5 Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptively non-native in speed and
evenness.
6 Speech on all professional and general topics as effortless and smooth as a
native speaker’s.
2.3 Teaching Speaking
2.3.1 Teaching L1 speaking skill
There is a large body of research on how people learn their first and
subsequent languages in childhood. For example, Lightbown and Spada (2006)
show that children acquire their first language in remarkably consistent stages.
Cognitive development plays an important role, e.g. children only start to use
adverbs of time such as ‘tomorrow’ when they have developed an understanding of
time. Another major factor which contributes to language development is repeated
exposure to words and phrases in context. As young people expand their knowledge
of the world, they learn to understand and use the language that goes with particular
contexts. By the time they reach adulthood, most people have acquired their first
language to a very high standard. They have a well-established command of the
language, and production and understanding will be automatic. If they have

11
weaknesses, the underlying cause is often a lack of exposure to situations where
more formal language is required. This can result in an inability to handle the full
range and register of the language, such as using formal language during a job
interview or writing a letter.
2.3.2 Teaching speaking to EFL learners
2.3.2.1 General outline of a speaking lesson
The speaking session activities Division of the session time
Classroom stabilization 2 minutes
Warm up 05 minutes
Pre – Speaking Vocabulary
8 minutes
While - Speaking Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
...
15 minutes
Post – Speaking 13 minutes
Home work 2 minutes
In a speaking lesson, warm-ups are essential for all aspects of ESL learning.
They should be corporate into every lesson. Warm-up activities are light switches in
the students’ mind, which makes the other stages more effective.
Pre-speaking is the stage in which the teacher presents new materials to the
students in an exciting and informative way and lay the foundation for the rest of
the lesson.
While-speaking is the stage in which the teacher lets the students begin to
practice the new materials in a guided way. The activities can be designed in pairs
or in small groups.
Post-speaking is where confidence plays a big role in the ability to
communicate.
2.3.2.2 Common techniques and methods
There are many techniques and methods in teaching speaking. There are

12
thirteen techniques of teaching speaking according to (Kayi, 2006). Based on some
experts’ statement, in his article in internet, he tells the techniques as follows:
First, discussion is one kind of activity that can stimulate students’ response in
speaking. After the content-based lesson teacher can set a discussion activity by
making some groups and holding question and answering related to the last lesson
they have learned. By using this activity routinely, students will use their speaking
in a more active way.
Second, role play is another kind of activity in which students pretend as if
they are in the real condition of society in various social contexts and have a variety
of roles. In role-play, the teacher gives information to the learners such as who they
are and what they think or feel. Thus, the teacher can tell the student "You are
David, you go to the doctor and tell him what happened last night, and…" (Harmer,
2007)
Third, simulation is almost like role play but there is a different between role
play and simulation. In simulation students ask to pretend as a character and make it
as in the real condition. For examples students act as a guitarist, then he must bring
property like a real guitarist.
Fourth, in information gap activity, students are supposed to be working in
pairs. One student will have the information that other partner does not have and the
partners will share their information. Information gap activities serve many
purposes such as solving a problem or collecting information. Also, each partner
plays an important role because the task cannot be completed if the partners do not
provide the information the others need.
Fifth, brain-storming is functioned to stimulate students’ knowledge about
the lesson that will be learned in the meeting. In brain-storming teacher asks some
questions related to the lessons or material they will have. Through brain storming
students are helped in understanding the material in an easier way. Brain-storming
also helps the students to practice their speaking in front of other people and
improve confidence. A point that the teacher must remember is do not ever
criticized students’ idea or opinion so the students can explore their mind freely.
Sixth, using story telling in teaching speaking will help the students be

13
creative. Students can briefly explain the story that has been read or make their own
story to tell to their friends in front of the class. Story telling forces students to be
creative in the delivery in order to make the story interesting.
Seventh, interview is almost like simulation but in interview, students are
only focused on making question and answer about a topic as they are a journalist
who will interview a resource person or a guest. Topic given is better given by the
teacher so the student will know what kind of question they have to make or what
the path they should follow. The interview questions have to be made by the
students using their own mind and way of thinking. This kind of activity also helps
students to practice their sentence production. In order to boost students speaking
confidence teacher can ask them to perform the interview in front of the class.
Eighth, in story completion activity, teacher will narrate a story to the class.
Teacher stops narrating the story after some sentences have been delivered. In the
next step in story completion activity each student asked to continue the story and
add the sentence told by the teacher using their own idea. They may add some new
character, plot, setting, and so on.
Ninth, reporting is used in most speaking lessons. Before coming to class,
students are asked to read a newspaper or magazine and, in class, they report to their
friends what they find as the most interesting news. Students can also talk about
whether they have experienced anything worth telling their friends in their daily
lives before class.
Tenth, playing cards is a game in which students should form groups of four.
Each suit will represent a topic. For instance: diamonds represent earning money,
hearts represent love and relationships, spades represent an unforgettable memory,
and card represent best teacher. Each student in a group will choose a card. Then,
each student will write 4-5 questions about that topic to ask the other people in the
group.
Eleventh, picture narrating is an activity which is based on several sequential
pictures. Teacher will have some sequential picture to show to the class. Students
ask to tell and explain the event or story happen in the picture shown.
Next, in picture describing activities, students are asked to form some groups.

14
Each group will have a picture given by the teacher. The next step, students are
asked to explain and describe the picture they have. After they have discussed the
picture, one of the group members will tell to the class about the picture. Everything
related to the picture will be told. This kind of activity is very good to promote
students’ creativity because this type of activity demands a high imagination and
creativity. Beside that students also can improve their public speaking skill.
Finally, for finding the different activity, students can work in pairs and each
couple is given two different pictures, for example, a picture of boys playing
football and another picture of girls playing tennis. Students in pairs discuss the
similarities and/or differences in the pictures.
Besides choosing a relevant technique, applying suitable methods is really
important. Teaching foreign language in general and teaching the speaking skill in
particular has experienced three main methods, i.e. grammar-translation, audio-
lingual and communicative language teaching (CLT). Whereas the two former
methods show a big number of drawbacks resulting in learners’ failure to make
achievement in speaking skill, CLT emphasizes “learning to communicate through
interaction in the target language.” (Nunan, 1991, p.56) and considerably enhances
students’ communicative skill. In the CLT classrooms, students are supposed work
in pairs or groups which requires negotiation and co-operation to do not only
accuracy-based tasks but also fluency-based ones. Besides, they are provided with
authentic activities and meaningful tasks, students feel free with real-life
communication. As a result, they are active in producing their own output and
learning new language through doing with mistakes. Teachers’ feedback, in this
case, appears to be more important than ever.
2.4 Feedback in teaching
2.4.1 Overview of feedback in teaching
Hattie and Kimberley (2007, p. 3) asserted in their review that “feedback is
one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement.” Friermuth
(1998, p.7) supported that teachers’ feedback helps “improve learners’ accuracy and
language acquisition”. The indispensable role of teachers’ feedback can be shown in
the fact that teachers’ feedback reflects to students what and how they perform,

15
showing them their strong points to strengthen as well as the weak points to
improve. Noticeably, when teachers leave mistakes untreated, the defective
language might serve as an input model and acquired by other students in the class.
In short, students, when doing without teachers’ feedback, run a high risk of losing
their ways. Added to this, Moss (2002) proposed that teachers’ feedback can speed
up the process of language learning by providing information about rules and the
limits of language use, which would otherwise takes students a long time to deduce
on their own.
In brief, teachers’ feedback is considered “a prime requirement for progress in
learning”, as proposed in Tunstall and Gips (1996, p. 9); therefore; “giving feedback
is one of the key roles that teacher plays in classroom.” (Al Fahdi, 2006). Moreover,
not every teacher is successful in doing this job; therefore, the matter of what types
and contents of feedback to deliver is undoubtedly a matter of concern.
2.4.2 Definition of feedback in language teaching
In the context of teaching and learning languages, there are a big number of
feedback definitions. Littlewood (1981) and Lewis (2002) both equaled feedback
with telling learners about their progress and showing them their errors in order to
guide them to areas for improvement. Different in words but similar in nature, Ur
(1996, p. 242) proposed that “feedback is information that is given to the learner
about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the objective of
improving this performance.” It is clearly seen that these two definitions treated this
terms under a broad point of view since they just indicated that learners are the ones
to receive feedback. However, in Ferris (1999), feedback was viewed as “any
response a teacher may give his or her students” (cited in Do, 2009, p.16).
Obviously, the point which all the aforementioned definitions have in common
is the purpose of providing feedback, i.e. for learner’s improvement. Accordingly,
there are two matters loomed. Firstly, question of quality feedback comes into
considerable concern. The second thing is the distinction between feedback and
criticism as Robert (2003, p. 12) proposed in his study: “Feedback should only ever
be used as a basis for improvement. It should not be mistaken for negative criticism
and vice verse” Supporting the idea of Robert (2003), Bound (2000, p. 7) pointed

16
out significant difference between feedback and criticism. Whereas, “A good
feedback is given without personal judgment or opinion, given based on the facts,
always neutral and objective, constructive and focus on the future”, “criticism is
personal, fault finding, very subjective, usually destructive, involve emotion, and
past oriented”. In another way, as opposed to feedback which is aimed to give
sincere input to someone in order for him or her to improve himself or herself,
criticism is given for the negative purpose and in an improper way.
In conclusion, feedback provision can be among peers or between teachers and
students; however, feedback concerned in this study is viewed in the notion of
teaching-learning act between teachers and students.
2.4.3 Roles of feedback in language teaching
Harmer (2007) stated that feedback is an essential part of effective learning. It
helps students understand the course studied and give them a clear guidance on how
to improve their learning. Added to this Keane (2008) proposed that when students
are better informed about their learning progress, they can zone on in areas that
needed more attention, further highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. With
clearer direction, students gain more confidence heading towards their goals.
Effective feedback helps students to maximize their potential during learning
process, raise their awareness of strength and areas of improvement. Feedback
motivates learners’ knowledge, skills and behaviors. It provides learners with
additional information to support their weaknesses and motivate them during the
learning process.
2.4.4 Types of feedback in language teaching
2.4.4.1 Immediate feedback
Immediate feedback refers to teachers’ comments delivered on the spot when a
good point or a mistake is made by students. Rodgers (2001) proposes that this
feedback type is employed by teachers when the aim of the stage of the lesson is to
promote accuracy, particularly during the drilling of the target language and during
guided practice. Richards (1992), who was concerned about spontaneous correction
asserted that it can help learners to be aware of the mistake straight away. The
advantages of using immediate feedback are that it enables teachers to give support

17
or encouragement when students are confused about their making mistakes, when
students need to be motivated and also the opportunity for immediate feedback to
make sure the message was understood. Although immediate feedback has some
advantages, it also has a weakness in that it may cause miscommunication.
Sometimes what the students hear is not what is meant. The simplest words, for
example, have a different connotation for the students. Richards (1992) puts
emphasis on the fact that sometimes immediate feedback type discourages learning
from speaking as they may feel that every word in their speech is being judged.
2.4.4.2 Delayed feedback
Immediate feedback is not recommended in the fluency stage of a speaking
lesson. In this case, delayed feedback should take place. As spontaneous feedback
can backfire sometimes, it is suggested that techniques of delivering should be
employed. Ur (2006) recommends that spontaneous feedback should be
“unobtrusive” to avoid the interruption of students’ “flow”. Another point as stated
by Rodgers (2001) who may distinguish on-the-spot from delayed feedback is that
whereas the former one tends to be used for individuals’ performance, the latter is
for group work. Although delayed feedback has the advantage that is it does not
backfire the students, this kind of feedback also has the weakness. Teachers give
delayed feedback after the students’ performance it may mean that the feedback is
too late to be received by the students. And in the speaking activity sometimes
students forget the mistakes that they have made.
2.5 Feedback in EFL speaking class
2.5.1 Immediate feedback in teaching speaking
In term of mistakes on form, Beare (2003) proposed that there are a number
of types of mistakes that students tend to make frequently, namely grammatical
mistakes, vocabulary and pronunciation mistakes. Accordingly, the contents of
teachers’ immediate oral feedback should put focus on these things. Specifically,
with grammatical mistakes, teachers are supposed to pay attention to mistakes of
verb tenses, preposition uses, etc. With vocabulary mistakes, teachers feedback
should cover students’ incorrect collocations, idiomatic phrase usage, etc. whereas
students’ errors in basic pronunciation, word stressing in sentences, rhythm and

18
pitch, etc. should be put focus on teachers’ feedback on pronunciation.
As for mistakes on meaning, Edge, in his book “Mistakes and Correction”
(1998) investigated two situations that this mistake type occurs. Firstly, it occurs
when a speaker uses a correct linguistic form that does not mean what he wants to
mean. Secondly, it is when the speaker uses a correct but socially unacceptable
linguistic form– the problem here concerns the politeness.
In the researcher’s point of view, mistakes on meaning concerns students’
ideas, idea organizations and logic of ideas. As for students’ mistakes on ideas,
teachers’ correction emphasizes on students’ ideas which cannot be understood by
the other despite their correct linguistic form. With mistakes on idea organizations,
teachers should pay attention to the way students organize their strings of ideas to
make sure that such idea organizations make it easy for the hearer to follow or catch
the main points. Lastly, teachers’ correction focuses on the logic of students’ ideas if
their strings of ideas are not coherent enough.
2.5.2 Delayed feedback in teaching speaking
Holtzman (1960), Dedmon (1967) and Reid (1971) recommended that
criticism should be offered after each speech and that one or more students may
contribute criticism. It should be noted that such feedback may have an effect on
succeeding speakers. In a control laboratory study, Miller (1964, p. 115)
manipulated positive and negative feedback given to a confederate during his
speech. The student who serves as the subject in the study observed the first speech
and the feedback given to the speaker prior to delivering his own speech. The
second speaker utterance rate and non- fluency were not significantly affected by
differences in responses to his speech and to that of his predecessors. Speakers
accorded the same response as their predecessors had fewer non-fluencies and a
higher utterance rate than did those accorded responses either more or less favorable
than those extended to their predecessors.
2.5.3 Immediate feedback vs. delayed feedback in teaching speaking
Hattie and Timperley (2007) noted numerous studies have been much research
on types of feedback, particularly contrasting immediate and delayed feedback.
Most of this research has been accomplished without recognition of the various

19
feedback levels. For instance, immediate error correction during task acquisition
can result in faster rates of acquisition, whereas immediate error correction during
fluency building can detract from the learning of automaticity.
It is impossible to reach any general conclusion regarding the relative
efficacy of immediate and delayed feedback. The claim that immediate feedback
inevitably disrupts fluency work is probably not justified, as Ellis, Basturkmen and
Loewen (2001) have shown. However, Ellis (2009) stated that there is general
agreement that in accuracy-oriented activities correction should be provided
immediately. Giving immediate feedback to students’ responses, correcting and
clearing up inconsistencies in student logic, and asking for explanations to answer
increases students’ performance.

20
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research questions
The study aimed to seek the answers to the following questions:
1. How does immediate feedback, compared to delayed feedback, affect EFL
high school students’ speaking fluency?
2. How does delayed feedback, compared to delayed feedback, affect EFL
high school students’ speaking accuracy?
3.2 Participants
The research participants were eighty members of two classes of students in
grade 11 at Le Quy Don high school. Both classes consist of forty students.
However, the researcher chose only twenty students in each of class to be able to
observe the best during the experiment. Their English level is low and of mixed.
Most of them have been learning English for at least six years. The participants
were following an English program that consisted of reading, speaking, listening,
writing and grammar lessons. However, they hardly had chance to communicate in
English. They often felt shy and afraid of making mistakes because of their lack of
social knowledge as well as their poor English knowledge. Moreover, at school
students were not motivated to interact with each other. They only focused on the
grammar section. Moreover, all of the test or examinations were only in written
form. Therefore, most students supposed speaking is not necessary at all.
Before taking part in the experiment, they all had passed the general English
test. This test found no statistically significant difference between two groups.
In class 11A2, one experimental group concluding 15 participants was
formed (hereafter named group 1). In class 11A3, one experimental group
concluding 15 participants was formed (hereafter named 2). While teaching the first
experimental group, the teacher used the immediate feedback technique and while
teaching second experimental group 2, the teacher used the delayed feedback
technique. These thirty participants met the requirement of the general English test.
They are at the same level of English. There was one speaking session in every five
sessions of each unit in the textbook. The participants had three English lessons
every week.

21
3.3 Materials
The topics of speaking course were taken from six speaking lessons from the
syllabus of Tieng Anh 11, which is from unit 8 to unit 13 in the textbook. Each
lesson covers one topic.
The general English test was taken from Key English Test (KET) Book by
Collins (2014). There were five parts in the test examining general English
knowledge: part 1: Matching, part 2: Multiple choice, part 3: Multiple choice, part
4: Multiple-choice cloze, part 5: Gap-filling. In part 1, there were eight signs,
notices, or other very short texts (A-E) and five sentences. Students had to match
each sentence to the right sign or notice. There were five questions, one mark for
each correct answer. In part 2, each sentence has a missing word and students had to
choose the best word (A, B or C) to complete the sentences. There were five
questions, one mark for each correct answer. In part 3, the five questions were
things said in a conversation. Students had to choose what the other person said next
(A, B or C). In part 4, there were a short text with ten numbered spaces. Each space
means there was a missing word and you had to choose the best answer (A, B or C).
Students got one mark for each correct answer. In part 5, there were a letter with ten
missing words. Students had to complete the letter with suitable words. Students got
10 marks for each correct answer. There were five questions, one mark for each
correct answer. The students were allowed to do the test in forty five minutes. The
test was used to make sure that the participants had reached the desired speaking
level for the speaking course.
The pre-test was taken from IELTS Practice Test (2015). There were ten
familiar topics for the participants to present. The post-test was also taken from the
same book with the same difficult level as those in the pre-test. The speaking topics
are about family, friendship, daily life, entertainment, hobbies, sports, jobs, music,
books and films.
3.3.1 The general English test
Before the experiment is carried out, eighty students from two classes 11A2
and 11A3 had to take one 45-minute test to choose thirty students with the same
level of English to take part in the experiment.

22
Table 3.1 The students’ Score in general English test
P Class 11A2 P Class 11A3
A1 32 B1 33
A2 19 B2 18
A3 32 B3 30
A4 26 B4 27
A5 25 B5 28
A6 20 B6 18
A7 32 B7 26
A8 17 B8 27
A9 21 B9 31
A10 30 B10 32
A11 25 B11 20
A12 27 B12 31
A13 26 B13 16
A14 28 B14 28
A15 22 B15 18
A16 15 B16 13
A17 16 B17 12
A18 14 B18 14
A19 13 B19 13
A20 12 B20 12
A21 13 B21 11
A22 12 B22 15
A23 14 B23 14
A24 15 B24 13
A25 12 B25 12
A26 11 B26 14
A27 13 B27 13
A28 14 B28 15

23
A29 13 B29 12
A30 10 B30 10
A31 12 B31 11
A32 13 B32 12
A33 14 B33 13
A34 13 B34 15
A35 14 B35 14
A36 15 B36 12
A37 14 B37 13
A38 15 B38 15
A39 13 B39 14
A40 13 B40 12
The table represents students’ scores in a writing test of general English at
level key English test which aimed at selecting the participants for experiment.
They are ranged into two sets one for class 11A2 and other for class 11A3. The
highest score for class 11A2 was 32 and the lowest one was 10. For class 11A3, the
highest mark was 33 and the lowest was 10.
From the results of the general English test, it can be seen that 50 participants
did not reach the level required to take part in the experiment. 15 participants from
class 11A2 (A1-A15) and 15 participants from class 11A3 (B1-B15) met the
requirement to take part in the experiment. They were at the same level of English.
3.3.2 Pre-test and Post-test
To find out the effectiveness of the technique immediate feedback and delayed
feedback in teaching speaking skill for the EFL students, the researcher based on
calculating the number of words per minute in term of fluency and number of errors
per 100 words in term of accuracy. During conducting the treatment, this process
was changed into standard score to compare one student’s performance to the
performance of other student with his or her grade. Three following comparisons
were made to determine how the participants’ oral fluency and accuracy scores

24
changed during the course. First, the average score on the pre-test of group 1 was
compared with the average score of group 2 in term of fluency and accuracy.
Second, the average score on the post test of group 1 was compared with the
average score on the post-test of group 2 in term of fluency and accuracy. These
comparisons help to find out how immediate feedback, compared to delayed
feedback, affect EFL high school students’ speaking fluency and how immediate
feedback, compared to delayed feedback, affect EFL high school students’ speaking
accuracy during the 12-week treatment period.
In the pre-test, the participants’ talks must be recorded for later analysis. The
number of words per minute spoken.
The results of the pre-test:
Table 3.2 Initial fluency and accuracy ability in the course by the participants
(P) of group 1
Criteria
P
Fluency
(Number of words per minute)
Accuracy
(Number of errors per 100 words)
A1 38 30
A2 50 20
A3 60 10
A4 30 32
A5 45 25
A6 30 30
A7 60 18
A8 50 22
A9 52 21
A10 30 29
A11 40 25
A12 36 24
A13 53 23
A14 55 22
A15 42 21

25
Table 3.3 Initial fluency and accuracy ability in the course by the participants
(P) of group 2
Criteria
P
Fluency
(Number of words per minute)
Accuracy
(Number of errors per 100 words)
B1 40 20
B2 50 30
B3 60 25
B4 33 29
B5 47 30
B6 31 20
B7 54 19
B8 50 21
B9 50 24
B10 33 23
B11 40 22
B12 35 22
B13 55 38
B14 50 26
B15 44 18
During the treatment, in each of the sessions, the researcher asked the
participants to represent their topics and recorded their talks. Then the researcher
recorded the participants’ talks and counted the number of words spoken per minute
and the number of errors per 100 words spoken to measure students’ fluency and
accuracy.
3.3.3 Textbook
In the area of integration and globalization, the Vietnamese Ministry of
Education and Training realized the important role of developing English use.
Language teaching and learning has witnessed a marked positive change.

26
Remarkably, since 2006- 2007, there has the change of the curriculum for high
school students. Instead of only reading and grammar sections the textbook “Tieng
Anh 10”, “Tieng Anh 11” and “Tieng Anh 12” cover four English skills. In each
unit reading skill comes first, and then speaking, listening, writing. Language focus
on which includes pronunciation and grammar is the last part. Each period is in 45
minutes and focus on one topic. Here are topics of 16 lessons also topics for
speaking ones in the textbook “Tieng Anh 11”.
Table 3.4 The speaking topics of sixteen units in Tieng Anh 11
Semester Unit Topic
1
1 Friendship
2 Personal experience
3 A party
4 Volunteer work
5 Illiteracy
6 Competitions
7 World population
8 Celebrations
2
9 The post office
10 Nature in danger
11 Sources of energy
12 The Asian Games
13 Hobbies
14 Recreation
15 Space conquest
16 The wonders of the world
3.3.4 Lesson plans
In giving treatment, the writer carried out teaching based on these teaching
lesson plans. This work extended approximately twelve weeks from December, 25th
,
2019 to March 25th
, 2020. There are six speaking sessions in six units of Tieng Anh

27
11. Each session consists of two lesson plans for two groups. Group 1 received
immediate feedback and group 2 received delayed feedback. In the teaching
process, each session started with some kind of friendly greetings in order to reduce
students' stress. Then the speaking part was performed through three steps. First of
all, the teacher provided pre- speaking activities which provided explanations of
vocabulary and structure. The second activity was for students talking about the
content of the topic. Afterwards, the performances were done by the students and a
set of exercises were to be done individually, in pairs or groups within a time limit
set by teacher. The third activity uses the technique immediate feedback for
experimental group 1 and the technique delayed feedback for experimental group 2.
The testing method that used in the third activity in this class for the experimental
groups at the end of the term is immediate feedback and delayed feedback without
telling the students about the teacher’s intention. Immediate feedback involves the
following steps. First, the representatives of groups are asked to present their
groups’ topics. The teacher listen to their talks and give feedback immediately by
praising students if they speak well (Ex. Good! / Very good! / Excellent!/ Good
job, …), giving suggestions if they can’t express their ideas (Do you mean …?),
interrupting students to correct any pronunciation mistakes, grammatical mistakes
or word-using mistakes if they make immediately or asking students some easier
questions to help them feel more confident. Meanwhile, delayed feedback involves
the following steps. First, the teacher asks some students to stand up and give their
groups’ ideas. Then, the teacher listens to students without stopping them for
correcting any mistakes. All students’ mistakes are collected for later correction.
The other students in class did not follow these techniques. The teacher keeps do
these activities repeatedly in six speaking lessons.
After finishing teaching all of the speaking lessons, the teacher can recognize
the level of students’ speaking performance in term of fluency and accuracy easily
by collecting the results of the post-test that students have done. The result of two
groups was calculated by the mean and standard, the average of all the tests. The
result of the test was described on the charts which happened in the findings and
discussion part.

28
3.4 Procedure
There are three tests given: general English test, pre-test and post-test. The
first test for all students is a general English test which lasted forty-five minutes.
Eighty students were chosen, but there were only thirty students who took part in
the experiment. Before fulfilling the treatment, all participants sat the pre-test. Each
of them was asked to present one of the familiar topics prepared by the teacher. The
test was administered in a way that the participants did not know that their speaking
accuracy and fluency were being measured. Each participant has three minutes to
present his or her topic. The teacher recorded their talks for measuring the speaking
fluency and accuracy before taking the experiment. After finishing the treatment, all
participants sat the post-test. In this test, each of them was asked to present the topic
with the same level as the topic in the pre-test prepared by the teacher. For both pre-
test and post-test, the participants talk about different topics. All the recordings will
then transcribed in order to investigate the effects of each type of correction on
participants' accuracy, and fluency in speaking afterwards. The accuracy and
fluency will be evaluated by counting the number of words spoken per minute. The
accuracy will be measured by counting the number of errors spoken per 100 words.
Then, the researcher delivered six speaking lessons in the syllabus “Tieng Anh
11” to both groups. During the experiment, group 1 were given immediate feedback
and group 2 received delayed feedback. The time proportion for each lesson was
designed as follows:
Table 3.1 Time proportion for the speaking lessons
Activities Division of the session time
Classroom stabilization 1 minutes
Warm up 02 minutes
Pre-speaking activities 10 minutes
While-speaking activities (Experimental
groups and Control group using the same
method)
20 minutes
Post-speaking activities 10 minutes
Home work 2 minutes

29
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results
4.1.1 General English results
Table 4.1 The average total scores and standard deviations of general English
test in the two experimental groups
Group 1 Group 2
Number 15 15
Mean 25.47 25.53
SD 4.88 5.89
From the table above, it can be seen that the mean total score of the
experimental group 1 was 25.47 (SD = 4.88) and the mean total score of the
experimental group 2 was 25.53 (SD = 5.89). The average total score of group 2
was slightly higher than the average total score of group 1. The average total score
difference between two groups was only 0.06.
Figure 4.1 Chart of the general English test’s scores for both groups
Figure 4.2 Pie chart of the general English test’s scores for both groups
9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
17->24 25->30 >30
33%
40%
27%
40%
33%
27%
G1
G2
33%
40%
27%
G1
17->24 25->30 >30
40%
33%
27%
G2
17->24 25->30 >30

30
In the general English test, the lowest score was around 17 and the highest
score was 32, by participants in group 1 and the lowest score was around 17 and the
highest score was 33, by participants in group 2. For group 1, 5 participants (27 %)
scored from 17 to 24 marks, 6 participants (40%) scored from 25 to 30 marks and 4
participants (33%) scored more than 30 marks. For group 2, 6 participants scored
from 17 to 24 marks, 5 participants whose scores ranged from 25 to 30 and 4
participants scored more than 30 marks. The results indicated that all participants in
the two groups had the same level of English.
4.1.2 Pre-test results
4.1.2.1 Fluency
According to Paul Nation (1989), fluency was measured by calculating the
number of words per minute spoken and by calculating the number of hesitations,
repetitions and false starts per 100 words. However, in this research, fluency was
only measured by calculating the number of words per minute.
Table 4.2 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental group’s
results on fluency on the pre-test
Group 1 Group 2
Number 15 15
Mean 44.73 44.67
SD 10.53 9.70
As can be seen from Table 4.2 (also see Appendix G), the average scores on
the pre-speaking test of the two groups were similar. The mean score of the pre-test
for group 1 and for group 2 were 44.73 and 44.67. Comparing the mean score of the
pre-test between the two groups, we could see that both groups’ mean scores were at
the same level. The mean difference of the pre-test between the two groups was
only 0.06.

31
Figure 4.3 Chart of the pre-test’s results on fluency for both groups
Figure 4.4 Pie chart of pre-test’s results on fluency for both groups
In the pre-test, for group 1, five participants (33%) spoke less than 40
words per minute, four participants (27%) reached from 40 to 50 words per minute
and six participants (40%) got more than 50 words per minute. For group 2, five
participants (3%) reached less than 40 words per minute, six participants (40%)
spoke at the speed from 40 to 50 words per minute and four participants (27%) got
the speed at more than 50 words per minute. Although the percentage of participants
in group 1 reached the highest speed more than that of group 2, more participants in
this group got the lowest speed. In other word, their initial level of speaking English
were the same.
4.1.2.2 Accuracy
Paul Nation (1989) mentioned that accuracy was measured by calculating the
errors per 100 words. In this research, the errors were classified into pronunciation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<40 40-50 >50
33
27
40
33
40
27
Number of words per minute
G1
G2
33%
27%
40%
G1
<40 40-50 >50
33%
40%
27%
G2
<40 40-50 >50

32
errors, word choice errors and stress errors.
Table 4.3 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental group’s
results on accuracy on the pre-test
Group 1 Group 2
Number 15 15
Mean 23.47 24.47
SD 5.57 5.38
From the data above, the mean score of the pre-speaking test for group 1
and for group 2 were 23.47 and 24.47. Comparing the mean score of the pre-
speaking test between the two groups, we could see that both groups’ mean scores
were at the same level.
Figure 4.5 Chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<20 20-30 >30
13
80
7
13
80
7
Number of errors per 100 words
G1
G2

33
Figure 4.6 Pie chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups
Both groups had the same results, two participants (13%) made less than 20
errors per 100 words spoken, twelve participants (80%) made from 20 to 30 errors
and the only one participant (7%) made one error. It can be seen from the results the
participants in both group made more the same number of errors.
The errors that the participants in the two groups had were classified into
pronunciation errors, word choice errors and stress errors.
Table 4.4 Means and standard deviations of types of errors on the pre-test
Group 1 Group 2
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
errors
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
errors
Mean 8.13 6.73 8.47 7.33 7.47 9.67
SD 2.45 1.79 2.39 1.35 1.46 2.4
As shown in the table 4.4 both groups made more stress errors than
pronunciation errors and word choice errors. In comparison with group 2, group 1
made more pronunciation errors (8.47 vs. 7.33), less word choice errors (6.73 vs.
7.47) and less stress errors (8.47 vs. 9.67).
13%
80%
7%
G1
<20 20-30 >30
13%
80%
7%
G2
<20 20-30 >30

34
4.1.3 Post-test results
4.1.3.1 Fluency
Table 4.5 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental groups’
results on fluency on the post-test
Group 1 Group 2
Number 15 15
Mean 40.87 51.67
SD 11.69 12.58
After a nearly six-week experimental period, the score of the post-speaking
test for group 1 stood at the score 40.87 and for the group 2 stood at the score 51.67.
Overall, the results indicated that the participants in group 1 made a decrease of 4
wpm in the speaking course. Meanwhile, the participants in group 2 made an
average increase of 7 wpm.
Figure 4.7 Chart of post-test’s results on fluency for both groups
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<40 40-50 >50
47
40
13
13
33
53
Number of words per minute
G1
G2

35
Figure 4.8 Pie chart of post-test’s results on fluency for both groups
For group 1, seven participants (47%) spoke less than 40 words per minute,
six participants (40%) reached from 40 to 50 words and two participants (13%) got
more than 50 words. For group 2, only two participants (13%) spoke less than 40
words, five students (33%) spoke from 40 to 50 words and eight participants (54%)
had more than 50 words.
As illustrated above, when comparing the difference between the post-
speaking test score and the pre-speaking test score, it is obvious that group 2 made
an increase in speaking fluency whereas group 1 made a decrease. The difference
between the scores of two groups was 11 wpm.
4.1.3.2 Accuracy
Table 4.6 Means and standard deviations of the two experimental groups’
results on accuracy on the post-test
Group 1 Group 2
Number 15 15
Mean 18.67 20.20
SD 2.97 5.20
From the data above, after a six-week experimental period, the score of the
post-speaking test for group 1 was 18.67 and the score of group 2 was 20.20. Group

36
1 made a decrease of 5 errors, whereas, group 1 made a decrease of 4 errors. As
shown in the table, we could see that group 1 made a higher increase in speaking
accuracy than the group 2. The difference between the scores of two groups was 2
errors per 100 words.
Figure 4.9 Chart of pre-test’s results on accuracy for both groups
Figure 4.10 Pie chart of post-test’s results on accuracy for both groups
For group 1, nine participants (60%) spoke less than 20 words per minute,
six participants (40%) reached from 20 to 30 words and no participants (0%) got
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<20 20-30 >30
60
40
0
53
40
7
Number of errors per 100 words
G1
G2
60%
40%
0% G1
<20 20-30 >30
53%
40%
7%
G2
<20 20-30 >30

37
more than 30 words. For group 2, eight participants (53%) spoke less than 20
words, six students (40 %) spoke from 20 to 30 words and only one (7%) had more
than 50 words.
From the results above, it could seen that both groups made increases in
speaking accuracy. However, the participants in group one made more improvement
than those in group 2.
Table 4.7 Means and standard deviations of types of errors on the post-test
Group 1 Group 2
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
errors
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
errors
Mean 6.53 5.47 6.80 6.13 6.53 7.53
SD 1.46 1.25 1.21 1.85 1.64 1.96
It can be seen from Table 4.7, the participants in both groups made more
stress errors than pronunciation errors and word choice errors. In comparison with
the participants in group 2, the participants in group 1 made more pronunciation
errors (6.53 vs. 6.13), less word choice errors (5.47 vs. 6.53) and less stress errors
(6.80 vs. 7.53).
4.1.5 The two group’s speaking performance during the treatment
4.1.5.1 Fluency
Table 4.15 Means and standard deviations of the two groups’ speaking fluency
during the treatment
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6
Group
1
Mean 46.47 45.27 44.00 44.13 42.37 41.87
SD 10.64 9.40 9.87 10.69 11.05 11.33
Group
2
Mean 44.47 45.27 45.80 46.60 47.67 48.27
SD 9.64 9.75 10.32 10.28 10.81 11.58

38
The Table 4.15 compares the results for two groups of participants. In
general, group 2 outperformed group 1. While most of the participants of group 2
increased their fluency, most of the participants in group 1 did not increase their
fluency. The mean scores of group 1 decreased gradually from 46.47 to 41.87
throughout the six tests of the experiment. On the other hand, the mean scores of
group 2 increased gradually from 44.47 to 48.27. Only one participant had his
fluency score decrease.
To compare the increases of each participant’s mean score, in table 4.16, the
data of each individual are listed in the two columns from the highest to the lowest
scores.
Table 4.16 Mean scores in the 6 sessions by all participants (P)
Group 1 Group 2
P Mean P Mean
A7 63.2 B3 64.5
A3 59.2 B13 57.2
A14 52.2 B7 56.2
A13 50.7 B14 53.2
A9 49.8 B9 53
A2 49.5 B8 52.8
A8 48.5 B2 52
A5 44.7 B15 46.5
A1 39.0 B11 43.2
A15 38.8 B1 42.7
A11 38.0 B12 40.7
A12 34.7 B10 35.8
A10 32.5 B4 35.5
A6 29.8 B5 34.8
A4 29.8 B6 27.2
Group 1 consisted of 15 participants with the mean scores ranging from 29.8

39
to 63.2. Group 2 composed of 15 participants with the mean score ranging from
27.2 to 64.5. For group 1, the first highest mean score belonged to the participant
A7 (63.2), the second highest was 59.2 by participant A3, then 52.2 by participant
A3, and the lowest score was 29.8 by participant A4. For group 2, the highest
mean score was 64.5 by the participant B3 and the lowest score was 27.2 by the
participant B6.
These results demonstrate that when the participants were taught with
delayed feedback achieve better in learners’ fluency than those who were taught
with immediate feedback.
session scores by all participants (p) in both groups
P
Group 1
P
Group 2
L 1 L6 Increase L 1 L6 Increase
A1 41 37 -4 B1 40 45 5
A2 52 48 -4 B2 50 55 5
A3 62 56 -6 B3 61 68 7
A4 32 27 -5 B4 34 37 3
A5 47 44 -3 B5 32 37 5
A6 31 27 -4 B6 31 22 -9
A7 61 69 8 B7 54 58 4
A8 53 46 7 B8 51 55 4
A9 51 48 -3 B9 51 56 5
A10 35 30 -3 B10 34 38 4
A11 40 36 -4 B11 41 45 4
A12 37 33 -4 B12 37 45 8
A13 55 46 -9 B13 56 59 3
A14 60 44 -16 B14 51 55 4
A15 40 37 -3 B15 44 49 5

40
In term of the improvement, the data in table 4.17 indicate that the biggest
individual difference between the last session and the first session scores was 8
wpm and the smallest was -16. For group 1, only 2 participants (A7 and A8) made
increases (8 wpm and 7 wpm). The other participants made decreases. Meanwhile,
all participants in group 2 made increases. When comparing the last session score
and the first session score of individuals in both groups, we could see that their
scores were greatly different between two groups and group 2 outperformed group
1.
In short, from the comparison of the first session and the last sessions’ mean
score of both groups as well as the comparison the increase level of each
individual’s scores between the last session and the first session, it can be seen that
the use of the technique delayed feedback in teaching and learning speaking skill
had positive affected on the students’ speaking fluency.
4.1.5.2 Accuracy
Table 4.18 Means and standard deviations of the two groups’ speaking
accuracy during the treatment
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6
Group
1
Mean 24.73 24.00 21.27 22.47 20.40 20.00
SD 4.03 3.91 3.95 3.68 3.52 3.30
Group
2
Mean 24.33 22.40 23.07 22.47 21.60 20.80
SD 5.18 8.03 5.23 5.50 5.57 5.49
As shown in Table 4.18, on average, both groups had decreases in errors. A
comparison between group 1 and group 2 showed that both groups had their
accuracy increase. For group 1, the mean scores decreased from 24.73 to 20.00. The
results suggested that the number of errors the participants of the group 1 made
decreased. Likewise, the mean scores of group 2 decreased from 24.33 to 20.80.
These results demonstrated that the participants in group 1 made a decrease 4 errors
and the participants in group 2 also made a decrease of 4 errors.

41
Table 4.19 Mean scores in the 6 sessions by all participants (P)
Group 1 Group 2
P Mean P Mean
A7 63.2 B3 64.5
A3 59.2 B13 57.2
A14 52.2 B7 56.2
A13 50.7 B14 53.2
A9 49.8 B9 53
A2 49.5 B8 52.8
A8 48.5 B2 52
A5 44.7 B15 46.5
A1 39.0 B11 43.2
A15 38.8 B1 42.7
A11 38.0 B12 40.7
A12 34.7 B10 35.8
A10 32.5 B4 35.5
A6 29.8 B5 34.8
A4 29.8 B6 27.2
In order to make it easier to see and understand, these mean scores were
listed into a table which consists of five columns: The first column was the group,
the second was the scores over 50, the third was scores from 40 to 50, the third was
scores from 30 to 40 and the last was scores under 30. They were shown in the
following table:
Table 4.20 Mean scores of all participants for both groups
Group > 50 40 to 50 30 to 40 Under 30
Group 1 4 (26.7 %) 4 (26.7 %) 5 (33.3 %) 2 (13.3 %)
Group 2 7 (46.6 %) 4 (26.7 %) 2 (13.3 %) 1 (13.4 %)

42
The data show that of all 15 participants in group 1, who were taught with
the technique immediate feedback during the 6 speaking sessions in the course, 4
participants (26.7 %) had their scores over or 50, 4 participants (26.7 %) had their
score from 40 to 50, 5 participants (33.3 %) with scores from 30 to 40 and 2
participants scored under 30. Meanwhile, among 15 participants in group 2, there
were 7 participants (46.6 %) got scores over 50, 4 participants (26.7 %) gained the
scores from 40 to 50, 2 participants (13.3 %) had their scores from 30 to 40. Only 1
participant (13.4 %) had their scores lower than 30. These results show that the
number of participants reached more than 50 wpm in group 2 more than those in
group 1. Moreover, the number of participants in group 2 got scores lower than 30
in group 2 less than those in group 1. The results indicate that immediate feedback
had negative effects on the participants’ speaking fluency and delayed feedback had
positive effects on the participants’ speaking fluency.
The errors were classified into pronunciation errors, word choice errors and
stress errors. The data was shown in following table.
Table 4.21 Comparison of the two groups’ results on types of errors
L1 L6
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
errors
Pronunciation
errors
Word
choice
errors
Stress
Errors
Group
1
Mean 8.27 7.60 8.73 6.87 5.93 7.27
SD 1.3 1.72 1.44 1.46 1.25 1.21
Group
2
Mean 7.33 7.27 7.47 6.67 6.80 7.73
SD 1.35 1.46 2.53 1.87 1.72 2.05
As can be seen from Table 4.21, the participants in both groups made more
stress errors than pronunciation errors and word choice errors. For group 1, the
participants made more stress errors (8.73) than word choice errors (7.60) and
pronunciation errors (8.27). For group 2, the participants made more stress errors
(7.27) than word choice errors (5.93) and pronunciation errors (6.87).

43
session scores by all participants (P) in both groups
P
Group 1
P
Group 2
L 1 L6 Increase L 1 L6 Increase
A1 30 26 -4 B1 20 17 -3
A2 20 17 -3 B2 30 26 -4
A3 20 17 -3 B3 26 22 -4
A4 31 25 -6 B4 28 25 -3
A5 26 21 -5 B5 30 27 -3
A6 32 26 -6 B6 21 17 -4
A7 20 18 -2 B7 19 16 -3
A8 22 18 -4 B8 21 17 -4
A9 22 17 -5 B9 24 20 -4
A10 28 17 -11 B10 22 19 -3
A11 26 22 -4 B11 21 18 -3
A12 25 19 -6 B12 22 19 -3
A13 24 20 -4 B13 37 34 -3
A14 23 19 -4 B14 26 23 -3
A15 22 18 -4 B15 18 12 -6
The increase levels of all participants for both groups are represented in table
4.22 and the results are summarized in table 4.23.
Table 4.23 Summary of the increase levels of all participants for both groups
Group
Increase
From -11 to -7 From -6 to -2
Group 1 1 (6.7%) 14 (93.3 %)
Group 2 0 (0%) 15 (100 %)
In term of the improvement, the data in table 4.23 indicate that the biggest

44
individual difference between the last session and the first session scores was -2 and
the smallest was -11. As shown in Table 4.23, for group 1, 1 (6.7 %) out of 15
participants made decreases ranging from 7 to 11 errors and the rest (93.3 %) had
decreases from 2 to 6 errors. Likewise, for group 2, no participant (0%) made
decreases from 7 to 11 errors and all participants had decreases from 2 to 6 errors.
In short, from the comparison of the first session and the last sessions’ mean
score of both groups as well as the comparison the increase level of each
individual’s scores between the last session and the first session, it can be seen that
the use of the technique immediate feedback positively affected on the students’
accuracy.
4.2 Discussion
4.2.1 Fluency
Beside negative effects of immediate feedback on participants’ speaking
fluency and positive effects of delayed feedback on participants’ speaking fluency,
this section also mentions the results by three participants who made different
results from the improvement trends of their groups. The participant A7 from group
1, the participants B5 and B6 from group 2. While most of the participants in group
1 made decreases in fluency, the participant A7 made an increase. On the other
hand, most participants in group B made increases in fluency, the participants B5,
B6 made no improvement.
First, the only participant in group 1 who made fluency improvement in the
course was A7. The result are shown in the following table:
Table 4.24 Results by the participant who made improvement
Participant A7
Average score 67.33
Average of the last test minus average of
the 1st
test 8

45
Figure 4.13 Progress chart of participant A7/increase
As can be seen in Table 4.24, the result demonstrates that only one
participant, A7, reached an increase of 8 wpm. The difference between the average
speeds of the first three tests and the last three tests was also compared.
Table 4.25 Means and standard deviations of the first three tests and the last
three tests of the participant A7
Test A7
The first three tests Mean 59.00
SD 1.73
The last three tests Mean 67.33
SD 2.08
The participant had better scores in three last tests than the three earlier tests.
This participant had the highest initial score and also had the highest final score,
which proved that the participant with good English always took full advantages of
the technique he was taught.
Second, this section also analyzes the results by participants who did not
make any improvement in the course. While most participants in group 2 made
increase in fluency, two participants (B6 and B7) made no improvement. The
participant B5 had higher score in the first test than the participant B7. However,
they made similar increases in the number of words spoken per minute in the last
test.
50
55
60
65
70
75
Words
per
minute
A7

46
Table 4.26 Results by the participants who made no improvement in either the
last minus 1st
score
Measure B5 B6
Average score 34.8 27.2
Average score of the last test minus average
of the 1st
test
-5 -9
Figure 4.14 Progress chart of participants B5 and B6/decrease
As shown in Table 3.13, the data for this analysis was taken from the results
of the last score minus the first score measurement. There were 2 participants (13%)
in the group 2 having no fluency improvement. The difference between the average
speeds of the first three tests and the last three tests was also compared.
Table 4.27 Means and standard deviations of the two participants B5 and B6
on the first three tests and the last three tests
Test B5 B6
The first three tests Mean 35.67 29.67
SD 3.79 1.53
The last three tests Mean 36.67 24.67
SD 0.58 2.52
The two participants had better scores in three last tests than the three first
tests. The participant B5 got rather high marks in the first two test, however, this
participant had low marks at the end of the course. The reason was that the topics

47
might not be familiar to this participant. Moreover, the teacher did not give any
suggestions or ask questions to help the participant continue the presentation. In this
case, the participant had to stop talking, which led to the negative results in some
other tests. For the participant B6, both initial score and final score were low. The
negative results were due to the participant’s speaking ability.
The results showed that most participants gained speaking rate increases in
the speed speaking course when they were taught with the technique delayed
feedback. Meanwhile, most participants had speaking rate decreases when they
were taught with immediate feedback. This supports the findings by Afsareh
Rahimi (2012) and Ali Asghar Gharaghanipour, Arash Zareian and Fatemeh Behjat
(2015). The results of these studies suggested that the group with delayed
Immediate feedback prevents the participants’ speaking fluency because they may
not feel confident when they are talking and they are always afraid of making
mistakes. On the other hand, delayed feedback helps improve the participants’
speaking fluency because they are not interrupted in the middle of their talks.
4.2.2 Accuracy
All participants in both groups made increases in accuracy. However, the
participants in group 1 made more decreases in the number of errors made per 100
words. In other word, the participants in group 1 made more increases in accuracy
than the participants in group 2. For group 1, the participant A4 made most errors
(32 errors) on the pre-test and made 23 errors on the post-test. Thus, this participant
had a decrease of 9 errors per 100 words. For group 2, the participant B13 made
most errors (38 errors) on the pre-test and made 33 errors on the post-test. This
participant had a decrease of 5 errors per 100 words. The results indicated that the
participant A4 made more improvement than the participant B13. The improvement
of the two participants was shown in the following progress chart:

48
Figure 4.15 Progress chart of participant A4 and B13/ increase
The difference between the average scores of the first three tests and the last
three tests of the two participants were also compared.
Table 4.28 Means and standard deviations of the two participants A4 and B13
on the first three tests and the last three tests
Test A4 B13
The first three tests Mean 30.00 36.67
SD 1.00 0.58
The last three tests Mean 26.33 35.00
SD 1.53 1.00
The results show that on the last three tests, the participants made decreases
in their scores, which meant the number of errors they made decreased. It proved
that they made increases in accuracy. However, the participant A4 made more
increases than the participant B13 (4 errors per 100 words vs. 1 error per 100
words). The difference in the Mean scores between the two groups indicate that the
participants who received immediate feedback made more increases in accuracy
than the participants who received delayed feedback. This supports the findings by
Ido Erev, Adi Luria and Anan Erev (2006) that the immediate feedback led to much
better performance during practice and transfer.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Errors
per
100
words
A4
B13

49
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
The study was carried out among 30 students at grade 11th
at Le Quy Don
High school. From the result of six speaking tests, it can be seen that there was a
statistically significant difference in means score and standard deviations of the
eight tests for both experimental groups who had started at the same level as the
general test score indicated.
This thesis shows the effects of immediate feedback versus delayed feedback
in term of improvement of students’ accuracy and fluency in their speaking
performance. In order to fulfill the purposes, a six-week experiment was carried out
among thirty 11th
grade students at Le Quy Don high school. The results derived from
the experiment have added to our understanding of using techniques of giving
feedback and made several contributions to language teaching methodology.
The major difference between the experiment in this thesis and previous
research lies in the research questions and measuring method. The experiment was
designed to investigate some issues that previous research had not covered. The
comparison of the effects of immediate feedback versus delayed feedback on
students’ speaking performance.
One of the most noteworthy findings to emerge from the research in this thesis
was the effects of the technique depend on the stages of the lessons and the students’
characteristics. For the first stages of the lessons, teachers should apply immediate
feedback, which enables students to memorize knowledge. This feedback type is
employed by teachers when the aim of the stage of the lesson is to promote
accuracy, particularly during the drilling of the target language and during guided
practice. It enables teachers to give support or encouragement when students are
confused about their making mistakes or in need of being motivated. It can help
learners aware of the mistake straight away. When students are at production stage,
they should be allowed to talk without being interrupted.
Moreover, it is essential that teachers know about students’ psychology. In
other word, the technique may successfully apply for some students but may not
bring good effects on the others. For instance, the students who are quite confident

50
will feel unpleasant if they are interrupted continuously during their talks. Therefore,
immediate feedback in these cases will decrease their fluency. Nevertheless, the
results will be quite different for those who often feel shy and absent-minded.
Without teachers’ suggestion and immediate encouragement, these students cannot
continue their presentation. Thus, instead of using delayed feedback, the teachers
should give immediate one.
The results of this work reveal that the application of the immediate and
delayed feedback in teaching speaking can bring about desirable benefits to both
teachers and students in teaching and learning speaking skill.
In comparison with delayed feedback, immediate feedback can help students
improve their accuracy. However, immediate feedback prevents students from
speaking English fluently.
On the contrary, delayed feedback enables students to talk naturally and
fluently. Nevertheless, students may make more errors in their speech.
After the experiment, one interesting finding emerged from the study in this
thesis. It was found that some students cannot continue their talks if they are not
asked by the teachers. For these students, perhaps the teachers have to spend more
time training their students overcome their problems.
In summary, the research in this thesis was conducted to determine the
effects of the two techniques of giving feedback on students’ speaking performance.
The thesis also compared the effects of immediate feedback and delayed feedback
on students’ performance in term of fluency and accuracy. Another aim of the
research was to find the most suitable way of giving feedback for different stage of
the lessons to achieve optimal results.
5.2 Limitations
Although the study has accomplished the aims set at the beginning, it cannot
avoid some limitations. Some are due to the methods undertaken to conduct it;
others are due to the measures adopted for evaluation.
First, a main limitation is related to the duration of the treatment. Time factor
is very important in the present study because developing speaking fluency and
accuracy would not be achieved in a short time. Fluency and accuracy are a skill

51
that needs extensive practice over a fairly long period of time.
The second limitation is the size of the experiment, the study involves two
groups of 15 participants. Therefore, only 30 participants in total received the
experimental treatment. In addition, the researcher needs time and efforts to
calculate speaking speed and speaking effectively for each participant. It is not easy
to make sure whether or not the similar effect can happen to a bigger size of
students.
5.3 Further research
Speaking skill is very important and teaching it is not an easy job. There are
many aspects related to this language skill, such as motivations in learning to speak
English, the communicative activities to develop speaking skill, the use of teaching
aids in teaching speaking, etc.
The results of this study are expected to give contribution to English teachers
and future researchers. Although the findings showed that there was significant
difference of the students who received immediate feedback and delayed feedback,
students’ speaking performance also depend on a number of other factors. The
findings and limitations of the study indicate some suggestions for further research.
First, in order to measure fluency, the researcher only counted the number of
words spoken per minute. Further research should pay attention to counting the
number of syllable, the number of hesitation and the number of repletion per
minute.
Second, the number of the participant seemed to be small, the length of experiment
time was short. If the researcher had been able to collect data from more
participants’ responses within longer time the results could have been generalized.
Further investigation into this matter with larger number of participant and with
longer amount of time is strongly recommended.

52
REFERENCES
Al-Fahdi, M. H. (2006). English language teachers’ use of oral feedback. Retrieved
April 3, 2010, from http://
www.moe.gov.om/Portal/sitebuilder/sites/EPS/English/.../Ch7.pdf
Belasco, S. (1967). Surface structure and deep structure in English. Midway, 8(11), 112.
Beare, K. (2003). Student correction during class : How and when? Retrieved
March 27, 2010, from
http://esl.about.com/od/esleflteachingtechnique/i/i_correction.htm
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning
society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167. Retrieved December
18, 2009, from http://jjpartners.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/feedback-and-
criticism/
Burns, A.., & Joyce, H. (1997). Focus on speaking. Sydney: National Center for
English Language Teaching and References.
Brown, G. (2004). Teaching the Spoken Language. An Approach Based on the
Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger H. L., III. (2007). The effect of type and
timing of feedback on learning from multiple- choice tests. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 47, 285-293.
Butler, A.. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Feedback enhances
the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing.
Memory & Cognition, 27, 604-616.
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. (1976). Teach Oral English. London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-
47.doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1

53
Chaney, A. L., & Burke, T. L. (1998).Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K -
8. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills, theory and practice (3rd
ed.). Diego, CA: Harcoart Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, N. (2009). Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cross, K. P., & Angelo, T. A. (1988). Classroom Assessment Techniques. A
Handbook for Faculty. Ann Arbor, Mich: National Centre for Research to
Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Davie, P., & Pearse, E. (1998). Success in English Teaching. Oxford University
Press.
Edge, J. (1998). Mistakes and Correction. New York: Longman.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, J., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative
ESL lessons. Language Learning, 5, 281-318.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of spoken corrective feedback types. English Language
Teaching Journal, 63, 97-107.
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In C. J Fillmore, D. Kempler, Z. W. S. Y. Wang,
Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
Florez, M. A. (1999). Improving Adult English Language Learners’ Speaking Skills.
ERIC digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED: 435204).
Fulcher, G. (1997). The testing of Speaking in a Second Language. In Clapham. C.,
& Corson, D. (Eds.), Language Testing and Assessment, (pp. 75-85).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University. Press.
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman: London
and New York.

54
Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1976). Dictionary of language and linguistics.
New York: Wiley.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational
Research. 77, 81-112. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from:
http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/77/1/81
Hemmens, A. (2011). Accuracy vs. fluency. Retrieved from https://www.esl-
library.com/blog/2011/07/05/accuracy-vs-fluency/
Hilferty, A. (2000). The relationship between reading and speaking. National center
for the study of adult learning and listening, 4(8), 56-72.
Hughes, R. (2003). Teaching and researching speaking. Edinburgh: Pearson
Education, No 11, November 2006 (http://iteslj.org/ being accessed on May
20th
, 2009).

55
APPENDIX A
GENERAL ENGLISH TEST
Time: 45 minutes
PART 1
QUESTIONS 1-5
EXAMPLE ANSWER
0 We can answer your questions. E
1. You can’t drive this way.
2. Children do not have to pay.
3. You can shop here six days a
week.
4. Be careful when you stand up.
5. We work quickly.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
PART 2
QUESTIONS 6-10
Read the sentences (6-10) about a birthday.

56
Choose the beat word (A, B or C) for each space.
For questions 6-10, mark A, B or C on the answer sheet.
EXAMPLE ANSWER
0 Mary ............ up early that morning because it was her birthday.
A stood B woke C came
B
1. Mary is having a birthday party ………….
A. at home B. 6 pm C. the afternoon
2. She …………..some friends to her house for a party.
A decided B agreed C invited
3. Her mother prepared a big cake decorated with white ……...
A. meal B. cake C icing
4. Nina and her friends had a great time, singing and dancing and............. to their
favorite music.
A. listening B. hearing C. looking
5. The party ………….to an end at six in the evening.
A. went B. led C. came

The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance.

The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance.

Similar to The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance. (20)

More from Nhận Viết Thuê Đề Tài Baocaothuctap.net / 0909.232.620

More from Nhận Viết Thuê Đề Tài Baocaothuctap.net / 0909.232.620 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Effect Of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback On Efl Students’ Speaking Performance.