Quan niệm của giáo viên về việc sửa lỗi nói cho học sinh và thực tế sửa lỗi trên lớp

This gave me the desire to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding oral error correction, which has been a focus of pedagogical strategies since

Chapter I: Introduction

1 Rationale of the Study

Recently, research interest in the teachers’ implicit theories that underlie their classroom behaviors has been increasing It is commonly agreed that each teacher possesses a variety of personal knowledge about pedagogical issues including beliefs about how to plan the lesson, how to teach, how to correct learners’ errors, ect Continuous research on this area has showed that what the teachers do in the classroom is governed by what they believe and these beliefs often serve as a filter through which instructional judgments and decisions are made (Shavelson and Stern, 1981) Thus, attention to teachers’ beliefs can inform educational practices in the ways that prevailing research has not and is essential to improving their professional preparation and teaching practices (Pajares, 1992) Kagan (1992) also affirms that the study of beliefs is critical to educational practices She argues that beliefs may be "the clearest measure of a teacher’s professional growth" (p.54) and that understanding them is "instrumental in determining the quality of interaction one finds among teachers in a given school" (p.85) Rokeach (1968) concludes that beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions made by individuals in the course of their lifetime

Within TESOL, there has been growing realization of a need to understand, and account for the underlying belief systems of language teachers and the impact these have

on their classroom practices (Farrell, 2005) However, in Vietnam to our knowledge there

is relatively little research in teacher beliefs and classroom practices This gave me the desire to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding oral error correction, which has been a focus of pedagogical strategies since the late 1960s when the trend away from the audiolingualism has contributed to a renewed interest in the use of language as communication

2 Statement of the Problem

Oral error correction is a complex issue, and the teacher seems to correct oral errors intuitively However, much of the research on teachers’ beliefs has so far focused on the

areas of science, math education or on reading while oral error correction has been poorly explored This study is, therefore, an attempt to tap into this important and complex problem

3 Aims of the Study

The purpose of the study is to find out the beliefs and classroom practices of an experienced teacher regarding oral error correction in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang Province The area where there is a discrepancy or consistency between teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices and the factors that may influence the teacher actual classroom practices were also be further investigated in this study

4 Research Questions

- What are the teacher’s beliefs about oral error correction?

- To what extent do her approaches to oral error correction reflect her stated beliefs?

4 Research Method

The study employed the qualitative single case study approach to explore the teacher beliefs and classroom practices regarding oral error correction The data was collected through interviews and classroom observations The data collected was then analyzed to gain the insights and implications of the study

5 Scope of the Study

A study on teacher beliefs of oral error correction and classroom practices is such a broad theme that cannot be wholly discussed within the frame work of this paper Thus, in this minor thesis an attempt to only one specific and commonly practiced aspect to oral error correction will discussed: beliefs of the way of oral error correction and actual classroom practices of an experienced English language teacher in 11th form class in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province and the factors that may affect the teacher

in her classroom practices

6 Significance of the Study

Ways of oral error correction and the relationship of these with classroom practices have often been neglected by teachers so far, the answer to the research questions hopes to provide insights into both what teacher believed and actually did in the classroom, teachers then can be aware of the importance of accessing teachers' beliefs and comparing these beliefs with actual classroom practices “when teachers become more aware of how they teach and how their students learn, then the whole educational process becomes more enjoyable and meaningful for the stakeholders: teachers and students”( Miler , 2004) It is also hoped that this study can act as a catalyst in enabling other teachers to reflect on and examine their own beliefs about their ways of oral error correction

7 Definition of Terminologies

Teachers’ Beliefs

Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to reality Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held (Adapted from Murphy, 1998)

The reason for choosing this definition of teacher beliefs will be presented in the literature review of the study

The Notion of Errors

The notion of errors is complicated by its nature Different researchers may have different concepts of errors It depends upon different considerations or in other words it depends on how language is approached

Corder (1975) states “ if language as a code, a set of rules for generating syntactically, phonologically and semantically well-formed sentences , then a breach of the code, i.e a use of wrong rules or misuse of the right rules may , but not necessarily, result

in superficially ill-formed sentences”.(p.123)

In this sense, language is formally approached: a superficially ill-formed sentence

is no doubt erroneous However, it is unnecessary for any superficially well-formed sentence to come up as non-erroneous If in a situation where communication is preferred the criterion should be what impedes communication, and it is known that there are many sentences that are ill-formed but understandable to hearers or readers

In informal settings, it is commonly believed that performance of native speakers is often taken as the norm for correcting people errors However, it is not always reliable because native speakers speak variety of dialects Take the example preferred by many linguists “ who is your name” for illustration , the sentence is considered as an error in British English but a good sentence in Maori English So, “what is error” is a question that can not be answered without taking into account some factors such as the standard of performance or the norms being aimed at, the knowledge of the learners, the context, the notion of “acceptability” and even the realistic assessment ( Mc Kating 1981)

In short, it is clear from these arguments that there is not always an agreement among linguists and researchers on what is an error This research studies the errors committed by learners of English in the context of Vietnam where English is taught and learnt as a foreign language Thus, the norms on which error determination depends should

be understood as undisputedly the prescriptive English standard usage There, of course, exist in English a variety of dialects but its speakers recognize one of which as standard That is to say in this study any deviated sides of learner speech and writing that cannot account for the English model of usage assumed by educated users should be considered erroneous, or unacceptable So the following contentions, which were adapted from Dulay

et al (1982), will be the starting point in this thesis Errors are understood as the flawed side of learner speech and writing, those parts of conversation or composition that deviate from English model of usage assumed by educated users

Error verse Mistake

There exists in language teaching and learning a distinction between the term an error and a mistake though linguists found it impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation The distinction resulted from the term “competence errors” and

“performance error”, to use Chomsky’s (1965) terms, in which the former is derived from incomplete knowledge or inadequate competence of the target language, the later is caused

by some aspects of verbal performance such as lack of attention, fatigue or careless That point of view is later supported by Corder (ibid.) when he makes a distinction between systematic errors i.e those caused by the formulation of incorrect hypothesis about the target language and non-systematic error i.e those caused by “memory lapses, physical states, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion” However, Duskova (1969) with her investigation of errors made by Czech learners of English in an attempt to look for a reasonable answer discovered that the above –mentioned principle of distinction was not reliable She found that many recurrent systematic errors: failure to express genitive relation or confusion of the passive of an active voice, ect reflected no defects in knowledge at all The explanation provided for these cases was the lack of autonomy in rule application Kielhofer cited in Schachter (1974) also supported this point of view by stating that a large number of errors of performance might indicate the lack of habit in using language skill, therefore lack of L2 competence of learners

McKating, by giving one example of student getting things right in one paragraph but wrong in context , implies that not all so –called “ careless” mistakes are caused by carelessness The learner may be unsure of the choice, so he just tries out the rules and hopes to be right some of the time He shows that the possibility to self correction will not always work in distinguishing errors and mistakes He shows cases where a student knows that one of two forms is correct but uncertain which When the teacher tells him that he has made an error in the first place, he knows the other must be the right one and he corrects the wrong one It is not a proof that this error is really a lapse

In addition, Corder (opcit.) though admits that the distinction between error and mistake is by no mean easy, he claims that “mistakes are of no significance to the process

of language learning” even native speakers commit them as slip of the tongue or the pen While Johnson (1988 cited in Ha 2005) argues that if the word “mistake” is used to describe the malformation due to processing inability under difficult operating condition, then it may be true that a good percentage of our students’ malformations are mistakes and

not errors In this case mistake correction becomes important in language teaching It is opposed to Corder’s idea that mistakes have no significance

It is clear from these arguments that there is little agreement among linguists and researchers on the distinction between these two terms which is by no mean clear cut Therefore, in this study I am in the support of Dulay et all (1982) on the point that In order to facilitate reference to deviations that have not yet been classified as performance

or competence errors, we do not restrict the term “error” to competence-based deviations

We use “error” to refer to any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be It therefore in this study the terms error and mistake can be used interchangeably

Chapter II: Literature Review

The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs of an experienced teacher in an Upper Secondary school regarding beliefs about oral error correction and her actual classroom practices No studies were found by this review on this topic specifically This review will, therefore, begin by describing some perspectives on and techniques in oral error correction In the following paragraphs of this chapter, we will describe the nature of beliefs and building a definition which will be used in the context of this study and finally some previous studies about the teacher beliefs and classroom practices which is the focus

in this study will be briefly presented

1 Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning

Over the past fifty years, there has been a dramatic shift in the perception and correction of learner errors in second and foreign language acquisition Throughout the 1950s and the mid-1960s, when the audio-lingual approach to teaching foreign languages was in full swing, learner errors were something to avoid In his book, Language and Language Learning, Nelson Brooks (1960 cited in Ha 2005) stated, “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is expected” (p 56) In this period, an example of the specific guidelines for error correction appears in The Teachers’ Manual for German, Level One, prepared by the Modern Language Materials Development Center (1961), which states that teachers should correct all errors immediately and that the students should be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own mistakes

Beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, however, studies in Transformational-generative grammar, first-language acquisition, and cognitive psychology have contributed to a trend away from audiolingualism (Shultz, 1996) In this new paradigm of language teaching, instead of expecting students to produce error -free sentences, students were encouraged to communicate in the target language Furthermore, producing errors came to be viewed as a natural and useful part of second-language acquisition (Corder, 1973; Lange, 1977 cited in Ha, 2005), which could provide language teachers with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching As second-language errors

began to be perceived as a natural process of acquisition, teachers were consequently discouraged from explicitly treating learner errors Communicative approaches downplayed the role of explicit error correction (Schultz, 1996) However, based on increasing evidence that corrective feedback can indeed facilitate L2 acquisition ( Ellis 1989; Long 1983, among many), a growing number of researchers point out the detrimental effect of “the lack of consistent and unambiguous feedback” (Allen et al

1990, p 67) and call for a reevaluation of the negative view on error correction arguing that error correction provides learners with negative input which might be essential for mastery of a second language

To summarize, there are two different schools of thoughts about learner errors : one sees errors as a sin and need to be avoided and the other sees error as the essentiality

in mastering a language Accordingly, there are different views toward error correction Some believe that error correction does improve the proficiency of language learner, especially in case of errors which inhibit communication and appear frequently Other argues that error correction is not so important and expresses doubts about the effectiveness of error correction Their argument is that learners’ error are simply indicative of a certain stage of development which will develop naturally into more accurate and appropriate forms (Makino 1993 cited in Ha, 2005)

2 Techniques in Oral Error Correction

Decisions about treatment of error will depend upon the stage of the lesson, the activity, the type of mistake made, and the particular student who is making that mistake (Harmer, 2001) A distinction is often made between accuracy and fluency We need to decide whether a particular activity in the classroom is designed to expect the students’ complete accuracy as in the study of a piece of grammar, a pronunciation exercise, or some vocabulary work for example - or whether we are asking the students to use the language as fluently as possible We need to make a clear difference between ‘non-communicative’ and ‘communicative’ activities whereas the former are generally intended

to ensure correctness; the latter are designed to improve language fluency (Harmer, 2001) The received view has been that when students are involved in accuracy work, it is part of the teacher’s function to point out and correct the mistakes the students are making That is

a stage where the teacher stops the activity to make the correction During communicative activities, however, it is generally felt that teachers should not interrupt students in mid-flow to point out a grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation errors, since to do so interrupts the communication and correspondence an activity back to the study of language form or precise meaning Indeed, according to one view of teaching and learning, speaking activities in the classroom act as a switch to help learners transfer ‘learnt’ language to the

‘acquired’ store (Ellis 1982) or a trigger, forcing students to think carefully about how best

to express the meanings they wish to convey (Swain 1985: 249) Part of the value of such activities lies in the various attempts that students have to make to get their meanings across; processing language for communication is, in this view, the best way of processing language for acquisition Teacher intervention in such circumstances can raise stress levels and stop the acquisition process in its tracks (Harmer, 2001) Therefore error correction during accuracy work should be clearly different from error correction during fluency work The following techniques for error correction during accuracy and fluency are suggested by Harmer ( 2001)

2.1 Correction during Accuracy Work

Correction is usually made up of two distinct stages In the first, teachers show students that a mistake has been made, and in the second, if necessary, they help the students to do something about it The first set of techniques we need to be aware of, then,

is devoted to showing incorrectness These techniques are only really beneficial for what

we are assuming to be language slips rather than embedded errors The students are being expected to be able to correct themselves once the problem has been pointed out If they cannot do this, however, we need to move on to alternative techniques

2.1.1 Showing incorrectness: this can be done in a number of different ways

Repeating: Here we can ask the student to repeat what they have said, perhaps by saying Again? Or more polite “would you please repeat that ? ” or another alternative “what” which coupled with intonation and expression, will indicate that something is not clear

Echoing: this can be a precise way of pin-pointing an error We repeat what the student has said emphasizing the part of the utterance that was wrong,

e.g: *Flight 309 GO to Paris? (said with a questioning intonation) It is an extremely efficient way of showing incorrectness during accuracy work

Statement and question: we can, of course, simply say That’s not quite right, or Dopeople think that’s correct? to indicate that something has not quite worked

Expression: when we know our classes well, a simple facial expression or a gesture may

be enough to indicate that something does not quite work This needs to be done with care

as the wrong expression or gesture can, in some circumstances, appear to be mocking or cruel

Finger-counting can be used whenever something is missing , whether it is a sound,

a syllable in a word, or a word in sentence Edge suggests that fingers should be counted from right to left so that it looks like left to right to from the students’ point of view, easing their recognition of the mistake

Furthermore, following a recent trend that laces greater emphasis on suprasegmentals, gestures can be used for correcting mistakes with stress and intonation( edge) Teachers can tap fingers on a desk to show stress in a word or in a sentence Nodding heads or clapping out the rhythm of a word or a sentence to indicate proper stress may also prove very helpful

Schachter introduces six hand signals for use with high-intermediate level learners:

- The first, a sports time-out signal, indicates an error of tense, aspect, or voice

- the second, a triangle made with the forefingers and middle fingers of both hands shows an agreement error

- the third, two fingers as in the “ peace” or “ victory” sign, show an error in pluralization

- the fourth, a letter P with one hand making the stem while the other hand makes the circle at the top, signals a preposition use error ( from the teacher’s point of view, the

P will be reversed)

- the fifth, a circle made with thumbs and forefingers indicates a word order error

- the sixth, crossed forefingers, alerts students to an article error

Hinting or Cueing : a quick way of helping students to activate rules they already know (but which they have temporarily ‘disobeyed’) is to give a quiet hint We might just say the word ‘tense’ to make them think that perhaps they should have used the past simple rather than the present perfect We could say ‘countable’ to make them think about a concord mistake they have made Such hints are believed to provide a positive stimulus, and this kind of promoting almost always gives excellent result ( Holley and King, 497) However, this kind of hinting depends upon the students and the teacher sharing linguistic terms which, when whispered to students, will help them to correct themselves

Reformulation or Remodeling: an underrated teacher technique is for the teacher to repeat what the

student has said correctly, reformulating the sentence, but without making a big issue of it, for example: Student: I would not have arrived late if I heard the alarm clock

Teacher: If I had heard…

Student : if I had heard the alarm clock

Many teachers’ corrections of phonological errors are simply brief modeling of correct pronunciation In all the procedures above, teachers hope that students will be able

to correct themselves once the teacher has indicated that something was wrong However, where students do not know or understand what the problem is the teacher will want to help the students to get it right

2.1.2 Getting It Right:

If the student is unable to correct herself, or respond to reformulation, we need to focus on the correct version in more detail We can say the correct version emphasising the part where there is a problem (e.g Flight 309 GOES to Paris) before saying the sentence normally (e.g Flight 309 goes to Paris), or we can say the incorrect part correctly (e.g Not

‘go’ Listen, ‘goes’) If necessary we can explain the grammar (e.g We say ‘I go’, ‘you go’, ‘we go’, but for ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘it’ we say ‘goes’, for example ‘He goes to Paris’, or

‘Flight 309 goes to Paris’), or a lexical issue (e.g We use ‘juvenile crime’ when we talk about crime committed by children; a ‘childish crime’ is an act that is silly because it’s like the sort of thing a child would do) We will then ask the student to repeat the utterance correctly Sometimes we ask students to correct each other We might say “Can anyone help Tom/ Mary?” and hope that other students know the correct version of the utterance -after which the student who made the mistake should be able to say the sentence, question,

or phrase accurately

2.2 Feedback during Fluency Work

The way in which we respond to students when they speak in a fluency activity will have a significant bearing not only on how well they perform at the time but also on how they behave in fluency activities in the future We need to respond to the content not just the language form; we need to be able to give solutions to the problems which our students have encountered or are encountering, but these are things we may well do after the event, not during it Our tolerance of error in fluency sessions will be much greater than

it is during more controlled sessions (Harmer, 2001) This is a place to start giving student

a litter freedom The teacher should walk around the class quickly to make sure that all the students are working properly When hearing mistakes, she makes a note of them This is important information for the teacher.( Edge 1997) Nevertheless, there are times when we may wish to intervene during fluency activities, just as there are ways we can respond to our students once such activities are over

Gentle Correction:

If communication breaks down completely during a fluency activity, we may well have to intervene If our students cannot think of what to say, we may want to prompt them forwards If this is just the right moment to point out a language feature we may offer a form of correction Provided we offer this help with tact and discretion there is no reason why such interventions should not be helpful Gentle correction can be offered in a number

of ways We might simply reformulate what the student has said in the expectation that

they will pick up our reformulation even though it hardly interrupts their speech, for example:

I don’t agree with you because I think

It is even possible that students can learn something new in this way when they are making an attempt at some language they are not quite sure of We can use a number of other accuracy techniques of showing incorrectness too, such as echoing and expression, or even say You shouldn’t say X, say Y, etc But because we do it gently and because we do not move on to a ‘getting it right’ stage - our intervention is less disruptive than a more accuracy-based procedure would be

Over-use of even gentle correction will, however, be counter-productive By constantly interrupting the flow of the activity, we may bring it to a standstill What we have to judge, therefore, is whether a quick reformulation or prompt may help the conversation move along without intruding too much or whether, on the contrary, it is not especially necessary and has the potential to get in the way of the conversation

Recording Mistakes:

During fluency work we frequently act as observers, watching and listening to students so that we can give feedback afterwards Such observation allows us to give good feedback to our students on how well they have performed, always remembering that we want to give positive as well as negative feedback One of the problems of giving feedback after the event is that it is easy to forget what students have said Most teachers, therefore,

write down points they want to refer to later, and some like to use charts or other forms of categorization to help them do this, as in the following example:

We can also record students’ language performance on audio or videotape In this situation the students might be asked to design their own charts like the one above so that when they listen or watch they too will be recording more and less successful language performance in categories which make remembering what they heard easier Another alternative is to divide students into groups and have each group watch for something different - for example, one group focuses on pronunciation, one group listens for the use

of appropriate or inappropriate phrases, while a third looks at the effect of the physical paralinguistic features that are used If teachers want to involve students more - especially

if they have been listening to audiotape or watching the video - they can ask them to write

up any mistakes they think they heard on the board This can lead to a discussion in which the class votes on whether they think the mistakes really are mistakes

Another possibility is for the teacher to transcribe parts of the recording for future study However, this takes up a lot of time! After the event: when we have recorded student performance we will want to give feedback to the class We can do this in a number of ways We might want to give an assessment of an activity, saying how well we thought the students did in it, getting the students to tell us what they found easiest or most

difficult We can put some of the mistakes we have recorded up on the board and ask students firstly if they can recognize the problem, and then whether they can put it right

Or, as in the example above, we can write both correct and incorrect words, phrases, or sentences on the board and have the students decide which is which When we write examples of what we heard on the board, it is not generally a good idea to say who made the mistakes since this may expose them in front of their classmates Indeed, we will probably want to concentrate most on those mistakes which were made by more than one person These can then lead on to quick teaching and re-teaching sequences which arrive opportunistically in this way Another possibility is for teachers to write individual notes

to students, recording mistakes they heard from those particular students with suggestions about where they might look for information about the language in dictionaries, grammar books

3 The Nature of Beliefs

Studies of many researchers (Shavelson and Stern, 1981; Pajares, 1992; Kagan,1992; Farrell, 2005, ect) on teacher’s beliefs have proved that beliefs play an important role in improving teachers’ professional preparation and teaching practices However, relatively little attention has been paid to this important area This may be due,

as Pajares (1992) explains, to the fact that belief does not lend itself easily to investigation and is difficult to define In the same vein, Pintrich (1990) states while beliefs have been described as the most valuable psychological construct to teacher education they are also one of the more difficult to define More specifically, Pajares argues that "the difficulty on studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional problems, poor conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures" (p.307)

In his review of the research on the topic, Pajares( 1992) refers to beliefs as a

"messy construct", one that has not always been accorded much precision and which

"travels under the alias" of: "attitudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, personal theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice practical principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name but a few that can be found in the literature” (p.309)

Pajares explains that confusion with the concept centres around the distinction between knowledge and belief However, it is not so much that knowledge differs from beliefs, but that beliefs themselves constitute a form of knowledge In his attempts to characterize beliefs, Nespor (1987) provides some distinctions between the two While knowledge often changes, beliefs are "static" and whereas knowledge can be evaluated or judged, such is not the case with beliefs as there is usually a lack of consensus about how they are to be evaluated Furthermore, there do not appear to be any clear rules for determining the relevance of beliefs to real world events Thomson (1992), in contrast, believes that individuals can evaluate their beliefs “ beliefs systems are described as dynamic in nature, undergoing change and restructuring as individuals evaluate their beliefs against their experiences”( p 32)

While there are no doubt other distinctions that could be made between the two constructs, a better understanding may be gained by exploring the relationship between the two Kagan (1992) refers to beliefs as a "particularly provocative form of personal knowledge" (p 32) and argues that most of a teacher’s professional knowledge can be regarded more accurately as belief According to Kagan, this knowledge grows richer and more coherent, as a teacher’s experience in classrooms grows and thus forms a highly personalized pedagogy or beliefs system that actually constrains the teacher’s perception, judgment, and behavior In terms of beliefs as being personal knowledge, Kagan explains:

"A teacher’s knowledge of his or her profession is situated in three important ways:

- in context (it is related to specific groups of students),

- in content (it is related to particular academic material to be taught),

- in person (it is embedded within the teacher’s unique belief system)" (p.74)

Like Clark (1988) who equates ‘implicit theories’ with beliefs, Nespor (1987) explains how beliefs become personal pedagogies or theories to guide teachers' practices:

teachers’ beliefs play a major role in defining teaching tasks and organizing the knowledge and information relevant to those tasks But why should this be so? Why wouldn’t research-based knowledge or academic theory serve this purpose just as well?

The answer suggested here is that the contexts and environments within which teachers work, and many of the problems they encounter, are ill-defined and deeply entangled, and that beliefs are peculiarly suited for making sense of such contexts (p.324)

Rust (1994) describes beliefs as socially-constructed representational systems These systems then are used to interpret and act upon the world Since beliefs are generally contextualized and associated with a particular situation or circumstance (Kagan, 1992), it

is not surprising that systems of beliefs may contradict each other (Ennis, 1994) Furthermore, wide variance can be found among the systems of beliefs of different teachers from within a similar group (Bussis, Chittenden, & Armel, 1976) Wehling and Charters (1969) discuss beliefs in terms of complex organizations consisting of discrete sets of inter-related concepts They include beliefs in the category of representations, or cognitive maps of the external world which serve as mediators for experiencing and responding to reality This conception of beliefs fits with the notion of beliefs as personal knowledge, personal pedagogies and implicit theories

Munby (1982) also equates implicit theories with teachers' beliefs Clark and Peterson (1986) in their review of the literature on teachers’ thought processes, argue that teachers' theories and beliefs represent a rich store of knowledge Teachers make sense of their complex world and respond to it by forming a complex system of personal and professional knowledge and theories which, as Kagan (1992) describes, are often tacit and unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms and the material to be taught

For the purposes of this study, that is investigating teacher beliefs in a particular context and relating to small number of students with specific materials to be taught, the definition will be built based on some selected elements described in this review of the nature of beliefs as follow

Beliefs represent teachers' personal knowledge

Beliefs represent implicit theories

Beliefs serve as mediators for experiencing and responding to the environment

Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held

Accordingly, the following definition which adapted from Murphy (1998) will be used as the working version in this study

Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to reality Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held

4 Research on Teachers’ Beliefs in Second Language Teacher Education

In the area of language teaching and learning, teacher beliefs have been examined

to see how personal beliefs and knowledge of the pedagogical systems of teaching have informed the instructional practices and decisions of teachers of English as a second language (e.g., Borg, 2003; Burns, 1992; Golombek, 1998) In addition, the study of teacher beliefs , as Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) have pointed out, "forms part of the process of understanding how teachers conceptualize their work" (p 42) To our knowledge, there have been a number of studies on teacher beliefs and classroom practices for example Farrell, 1999; Ng & Farrell, 2003; Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001; Yim, 1993; Farrel , 2005; Johnson, 1991

Studies by both Ng & Farrell, (2003) and Yin (1993) investigated the extent to which teachers’ theoretical beliefs influenced their classroom practices, and found evidences to suggest that what teachers say and do in the classroom are governed by their beliefs

Farrell (1999) examined the belief system of pre-service teachers of English grammar in terms of its influence on teaching practices and found evidence to suggest that these beliefs may be resistant to change Similarly, Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) discovered (from administering a self-report questionnaire to participants in an in-service course) that although many stated they followed a communicative approach to teaching,

"many of the respondents still hold firmly to the belief that grammar is central to language learning and direct grammar teaching is needed by their EFL/ESL students" (p 54)

Farrel (2005) in his exploratory case study adopted a qualitative case study approach to investigate the relationship between beliefs and actual classroom practices

with regards to grammar teaching of two experienced teachers of English language in a primary school in Singapore Data collection of the study occurred over a period of two months Sources of data included one scheduled pre-study interview with each of the two teachers, two non-participatory observations of the teachers' classes with pre-lesson and post-lesson interviews, as well as a collection of random samples of their students' written work The results show that Daphne, one of the subjects of the study, has a strong sense of convergence between stated beliefs and actual classroom practices Having herself experienced English language learner, learning by explicit instruction on the rules of grammar; Daphne firmly believes that her students can also benefit from this overt approach to grammar teaching Her actual classroom practices of providing explicit explanations and instructions on grammar items and structures were congruent with her belief in her "traditional approach to grammar teaching." The result also showed that Daphne’s case appears to be in conflict with the Johnson's (1999) suggestion that many language teachers are adamant about not recreating the same type of formal language learning experiences they had when they were students Not only was Daphne amenable to recreating her own learning experience, she was committed to it because of the benefits that she perceived the approach would hold for her students in the Singapore education system

For Velma, the other subject of the study, her beliefs in a more indirect, or covert, approach to grammar teaching partially matched some her actual classroom practices During the pre-study interview, Velma expressed the belief that grammar teaching should

be integrated into speaking, writing and reading In fact, this was observed during Velma's Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, where students were actively discussing and writing poetry and short stories, rather than receiving explicit instruction on adverbs of manner Even though it may seem that Velma's beliefs and practices converge, the researcher noted some divergence also For example, during Velma's Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, she made explicit grammar explanations and the activities were not contextualized into meaningful communicative situations In fact, her grammar teaching was not incidental but structured and prescriptive In short, Farrell (2005) concluded that teachers do have a set of complex beliefs that are sometimes not match their classroom practices

Johnson (1991) in an investigation into the extent, to which teachers' theoretical beliefs influence their classroom practices, used three measures to identify ESL teachers' beliefs: a descriptive account of what teachers believe to constitute an ideal ESL classroom context, a lesson plan analysis task, and a Beliefs Inventory In the sample of teachers studied she identified three different methodological positions: a skills-based approach which views language as consisting of four discrete language skills; a rules-based approach which views language as a process of rule-governed creativity; and a function-based approach which focuses on the use of authentic language within situational contexts and which seeks to provide opportunities for functional and communicative language use in the classroom The majority of the teachers in the sample held clearly defined beliefs which consistently reflected one of these three methodological approaches Teachers representing each theoretical orientation were then observed while teaching and the majority of their lessons were found to be consistent with their theoretical orientation A teacher who expressed a skill based theoretical orientation generally presented lessons in which the focus was primarily on skill acquisition A teacher with the rule-based orientation tended to employ more activities and exercises which served to reinforce knowledge of grammatical structures She constantly referred to grammar even during reading and writing activities, for example, by asking students to identify a key ' grammatical structure and to explain the rule which governed its use The function-based teachers, on the other hand, selected activities which typically involved the learners' personal expression, teaching word meaning and usage through a meaningful context, reading activities which focused on the concepts or ideas within the text, and context-rich writing activities where students were encouraged to express their ideas without attention to grammatical correctness

Despite the increased levels of interest in the area of language teachers’ beliefs, there have not been many case study investigations that have focused on the beliefs of experienced language teachers regarding oral error correction (especially in the context

of the case study reported in this paper) Thus, the case study presented in this paper is one attempt to add to the literature on this important topic

In conclusion, the literature considered in this review reminds us of the significant perspectives on error correction and techniques in oral error correction which have so far