Error correction in oral communicative activities students and teachers viewpoints m a thesis in tesol

In these classes, oral communicative activities are frequently used and teachers tend not to correct all student’s errors and mistakes.. The results also indicate that students and teach

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Making errors and mistakes is part of the process of foreign language learning and correcting students’ errors and mistakes is a part of foreign language teaching (Edge J.,

Different theories of language learning and methodologies present various perspectives on the timing and methods for correcting students' errors and mistakes, as summarized by Ur P (2000).

Audio-lingualism emphasizes minimizing learner mistakes by progressing through small, controlled steps, which reduces the need for correction Positive reinforcement is more effective for learning, as individuals improve by receiving affirmation for their correct responses.

Cognitive-code learning: Mistakes are regrettable, but an unavoidable part of learning: they should be corrected whenever they occur to prevent them occurring again

Interlanguage: Mistakes are not regrettable, but an integral and important part of language learning; correcting them is a way of bringing the learner’s

“interlanguage” closer to the target language (Selinker, 1972, 1992)

The Communicative Approach emphasizes that not every mistake requires correction; the primary goal of language learning is to effectively receive and convey meaningful messages Corrections should be targeted at errors that hinder this objective, rather than focusing on minor inaccuracies in usage.

According to Monitor Theory, correction does not facilitate genuine language acquisition; instead, it merely aids learners in consciously monitoring their speech or writing Therefore, teachers should focus on providing comprehensible input that enables learners to acquire the language, rather than emphasizing correction (Krashen, 1982).

In recent years, the demand for English communication skills has surged in Vietnam, particularly following the country's accession to the WTO This shift has led to a growing recognition of the importance of learning English not merely for exams but for effective communication Consequently, numerous "English for Communication" classes have emerged in language schools and centers, catering to students eager to enhance their communicative abilities in English.

Classes that utilize the Communicative Approach emphasize the importance of enabling learners to use English for real communication (Howatt, 1984) This method incorporates various "communicative activities," which include tasks such as giving and following instructions, information transfer, and role-play (Stern H.H., 1993) These activities provide learners with meaningful opportunities to engage in authentic communication, enhancing their language skills through practical application.

The Communicative Approach prioritizes students' fluency over accuracy, leading teachers to often refrain from correcting errors during oral interactions.

Many teachers encounter various reactions from their students, including questions like “Am I correct?” and “Did I say this incorrectly?” Some students express reluctance to speak due to uncertainty about their correctness, while others seek reassurance by asking, “I want to speak to the teacher so you can correct my mistakes.” Additionally, students may wonder, “Why don’t you correct our mistakes?”

Students' reactions indicate a mismatch between their expectations for error correction and teachers' beliefs, suggesting a potential gap in understanding regarding error correction in communicative activities.

Therefore, in order to understand the problem more precisely, a research into students’ and teachers’ viewpoints on error treatment in oral communicative activities should be conducted.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to explore three key areas: first, it investigated students' perspectives on error correction during oral communicative activities; second, it examined teachers' views on the same topic; and third, it compared the beliefs of teachers with the expectations of students regarding error correction The findings will provide insights into the alignment or discrepancies between these viewpoints and offer recommendations for enhancing English learning and teaching in communicative classrooms in Vietnam.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Questions

1 What are students’ viewpoints on teachers’ error treatments in oral communicative activities?

2 What are teachers’ viewpoints on students’ errors and error treatments in oral communicative activities?

3 How do students’ viewpoints agree with, or differ from teachers’ ones?

Due to the complexity and scale of the problem being investigated, a descriptive, quantitative methodology was chosen to address the research questions through statistical analyses To effectively gather and compare a large volume of perceptions, attitudes, and opinions, questionnaires featuring multiple-choice statements, Likert-scale items, and rank-ordered scales were utilized, as open interviews with open-ended questions would be less effective for this purpose.

Data Collection Procedures

the questionnaires then were collected and analyzed using SPSS (Statistic Package for Social Sciences) software to find the results.

Delimitations and Limitations

This study focused exclusively on error treatments in oral communicative activities at the Youth Foreign Language School (YFLS), specifically involving students at the Elementary, Pre-Intermediate, and Intermediate levels of English proficiency, along with their teachers Consequently, the findings are limited to this context and do not extend to error treatments in other activities, such as grammar presentations or controlled practices, nor do they apply to students in different proficiency levels or types of classes.

Limitations highlight potential weaknesses in the study (Creswell, 1994, p 110) The use of a questionnaire for data collection from a purposive sample may restrict the generalizability of the results Additionally, the findings may be less satisfactory due to the researcher’s limited time and experience Furthermore, the recommendations are confined to communicative classes in YFLS, although the insights could be valuable to a broader audience.

Assumptions

- The sample represented the population of communicative classes at YFLS and these classes really used oral communicative activities

- The data collection and data analysis procedures were appropriate to answer the research questions

- The respondents understood every item of the questionnaires and answered the questions honestly.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Operationally defining terms ensures a shared understanding among all participants, aligning them with the researcher's intended meanings This approach minimizes confusion and enhances the overall analysis by establishing clear definitions for key terms used in the study.

Communicative Activities: Harmer J (1992), Stern H (1993) state that communicative activities are activities that give students the opportunity to communicate meaningfully in the target language Some of the communicative activities suggested by

Stern H (1993) identifies several effective strategies for language learning, including short-term visits to target language communities, student exchanges, and L2 day or lunch meetings Additionally, fostering student-teacher interactions and inviting native guest speakers can enhance the learning experience Engaging topics and activities that stem from learners' personal lives, along with classroom activities such as information transfer, information gaps, jigsaw tasks, problem-solving, role-play, and drama techniques, are also crucial for effective language acquisition.

The communicative approach, also known as communicative language teaching, prioritizes communicative competence as the primary goal of language learning (Platt J & Platt H., 1992) This approach emphasizes meaningful communication in the target language, focusing on functions rather than forms (Harmer J., 1992; Nunan D., 1999) According to Doggett G (1986), it involves teaching students to engage in authentic communicative activities in small groups, using real materials Consequently, learners develop the ability to use language for various purposes, such as requesting, describing, and expressing themselves, while also interacting effectively with others.

Communicative classes integrate communicative activities throughout various stages of the learning process This approach aligns with the "balanced activities approach" proposed by Harmer J (1992), emphasizing the importance of interaction in language learning.

The program will focus on achieving a balance between various types of input and output, emphasizing roughly-tuned input and communicative activities over controlled language presentation and practice.

Errors: Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Platt

In the context of second or foreign language learners, errors occur when linguistic items—such as words, grammatical structures, or speech acts—are used in ways that fluent or native speakers perceive as indicative of incomplete learning These errors can be categorized into several types: lexical errors pertain to vocabulary, phonological errors relate to pronunciation, syntactic errors involve grammar, and pragmatic errors arise from misunderstandings of a speaker's communicative intent, often due to incorrect application of speech acts or conversational rules.

Mistakes occur when learners write or speak without sufficient attention, often due to fatigue or carelessness According to Platt J & Platt H (1992), mistakes and errors are considered synonymous (p 127).

Oral communicative activities are designed to stimulate spoken interaction among students and between teachers and students, as defined by Harmer (1992) These activities include reaching a consensus, engaging in discussions, relaying instructions, playing communication games, solving problems, sharing personal experiences, and participating in simulations and role-plays.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is important for two main reasons Firstly, it enables teachers to gain insights into their students' preferences and expectations regarding error correction in language teaching The research findings will guide educators in selecting effective strategies for addressing students' errors, as aligning teachers' beliefs and practices with students' needs enhances language learning success (Harmer, 1992; Nunan, 1999; Ur, 2000).

This study addresses the gaps in existing research by focusing on error correction in oral communicative activities, an area that has been underexplored While numerous studies have examined error correction, few have specifically targeted Vietnamese classrooms, where traditional learning methods prioritize accuracy over fluency.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This study is structured into five chapters: Chapter 1 provides an introduction, Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature and research, Chapter 3 outlines the research design and methodology, Chapter 4 discusses and analyzes the findings, and Chapter 5 concludes with a summary and recommendations for future research in English language teaching.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

ERRORS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Making mistakes is a fundamental aspect of language acquisition, as it mirrors the broader human learning process (Brown, 2000) Many educators and researchers emphasize that errors are essential for effective language learning (Brown, 2000; Littlewood).

1987) also believe that when learners make errors, the learning is taking place and in turn, learners can benefit from the form of feedback on those errors

Many researchers and teachers agree that a distinction between mistakes and errors is very important (Brown, 2000; Corder, 1967)

Mistakes are a natural part of the learning process, occurring when individuals fail to apply known systems correctly due to various factors, including over-enthusiasm, rule over-generalization, and interference from their native language (Mumford & Darn, 2007) Both native speakers and language learners are prone to making mistakes, which are often unsystematic and can be self-corrected (Brown, 2000).

Errors are systematic and repetitive, indicating a learner's level of competence They often arise from the learner's current stage of language development or ineffective teaching methods (Mumford & Darn, 2007) Unlike mistakes, errors cannot be self-corrected and require intervention through teaching or reteaching.

An error can be categorized in a variety of ways

2.1.1.1 Overt Errors and Covert Errors:

Corder (1971, as cited in Brown, 2000) emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between overt and covert errors in language Overt errors are those that are grammatically incorrect, while covert errors, although grammatically correct, are contextually inappropriate and can lead to misunderstandings or confusion in communication.

An example of a grammatical error is the phrase “I student,” which should be corrected to “I’m a student.” However, using “I’m a student” as a response to the question “Where are you from?” is also incorrect.

Brown (2000) suggests a “simpler and more straightforward terms” for overt and covert errors are “sentence level” errors and “discourse level” errors

2.1.1.2 Global Errors and Local Errors:

According to Burt & Kiparsky (as cited in Brown, 2000), an error can be viewed as global or local

Global errors obstruct effective communication, making it difficult for the listener to grasp the speaker's intended message In contrast, local errors are minor and do not impede understanding, allowing the listener to infer the meaning despite these small mistakes.

The phrase "Well, it’s a hurry round there" represents a global error due to its ambiguity and lack of clarity in various contexts In contrast, "a trouser" is considered a local error, as it remains comprehensible in many situations (Brown, 2000).

Errors in language can be categorized into several types: lexical errors pertain to vocabulary, phonological errors relate to pronunciation, syntactic errors involve grammar, interpretive errors arise from misunderstandings of a speaker's intention, and pragmatic errors occur when conversational rules are not applied However, as noted by Brown (2000), distinguishing between these error types can be challenging, as a phonological error may also manifest as a lexical or syntactic error.

Donald (2007) suggests that errors can also be categorized by the reason for its production:

- Pre-systematic: error as the result of random guess

- Systematic: error produced while testing out hypotheses

- Post-systematic: a slip of tongue, a lapse, a mistake caused by carelessness, fatigue

2.1.2 Sources of Errors Making errors is inevitable in the process of learning language There are some causes for the making of errors in language learning

Interlingual Transfer, as highlighted by Edge (1990), is a major source of errors for language learners, particularly in the early stages of acquisition At this point, learners are heavily influenced by their native language, leading to mistakes in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar When faced with uncertainty in expressing themselves in English, learners often resort to using words and structures from their first language, attempting to adapt them to the foreign language context (Edge, 1990, p 7).

Negative intralingual transfer, or overgeneralization, is now recognized as a significant source of errors in second language acquisition Research by Taylor (1975) indicates that as learners advance in their second language, their prior experiences and existing knowledge start to incorporate structures from the target language Examples of errors resulting from intralingual transfer include various misapplications of grammatical rules and vocabulary usage.

- past tense form of the verb following a modal

- present tense –s on a verb following a modal

- -ing on a verb following a modal, etc

In a classroom setting, as noted by Brown (2000), teachers or textbooks can inadvertently guide students to form incorrect hypotheses about language, which may result in errors Misleading explanations or inaccurate presentations of language structures or vocabulary can significantly impact learners' understanding and usage.

Learners often encounter challenges when employing production strategies to achieve their communicative goals For example, when a learner is unsure of how to express a word in English, they may resort to explaining it using their native language, a technique known as "circumlocution." However, this approach can sometimes result in inaccurate explanations.

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ABOUT ERROR TREATMENT IN FOREIGN

Researchers and educators acknowledge that errors are an inherent aspect of learning a foreign language; however, there is ongoing debate regarding the best methods, timing, and approaches for correcting these mistakes.

The different opinions in error correction may be based on different theories of language learning and methodologies as Ur (2000) summarized:

Audio-lingualism emphasizes minimizing learner mistakes by progressing through small, controlled steps, which reduces the need for correction Positive assessment is deemed less effective for learning; instead, individuals learn best by receiving reinforcement for correct performance.

Cognitive-code learning: Mistakes are regrettable, but an unavoidable part of learning: they should be corrected whenever they occur to prevent them occurring again

Interlanguage: Mistakes are not regrettable, but an integral and important part of language learning; correcting them is a way of bringing the learner’s “interlanguage” closer to the target language

The Communicative Approach emphasizes that not every mistake requires correction; the primary goal of language learning is to effectively receive and convey meaningful messages Corrections should be targeted at errors that hinder this objective, rather than focusing on minor inaccuracies in usage.

Monitor theory posits that correction does not facilitate genuine language acquisition; instead, it merely aids learners in consciously monitoring their speech or writing Therefore, the primary role of the teacher should be to deliver comprehensible input that enables learners to acquire the language, rather than focusing on correction.

Many modern teachers and educators adopt a blend of various theories and methodologies in language instruction; however, the fundamental question of "Correct or not correct?" remains paramount in the context of correction (Edge, 1990).

Ur (2000) argues that excessive focus on learners' errors can be discouraging and may hinder communication, while Zoubair (2000) suggests that corrections should be minimal Conversely, some researchers warn that neglecting errors can lead to "fossilization" in learners' interlanguage However, many scholars, including Brown (2000), Edge (1990), and Harmer (1994), concur that while errors should be addressed, it is not necessary to correct them constantly.

2.2.1 Which Errors should be Corrected?

Edge (1990) emphasizes the importance of addressing mistakes that impact the meaning of multiple sentences over minor grammatical issues within a single sentence Similarly, Doff (1980) supports the notion that only significant errors warrant correction.

Local errors should generally be left uncorrected to maintain the flow of communication, as their meaning remains clear, while global errors require correction to avoid confusion (2000, p 221) Gover & Walter (1983) propose that corrections should only be made upon a learner's request Additionally, Hendrickson (1978, as cited in Krashen, 1987) argues that certain errors warrant correction.

They are “global” errors, errors that interfere with communication or impede the intelligibility of a message Such errors deserve top priority in correction

Errors that are the most stigmatized, that cause the most unfavorable reactions, are the most important to correct

Errors that occur most frequently should be given top priority

Before addressing an error, educators must evaluate its frequency and severity, determine if it is a significant mistake or merely a slip of the tongue, and assess whether the error impacts the clarity of the message and disrupts communication.

2.2.2 When should Errors be Corrected?

Many researchers, including Doff (1980), Gover & Walter (1983), Harmer (1994), and Ur (2000), argue that errors can be corrected during accuracy-focused tasks, where the emphasis is on grammatical correctness Conversely, in fluency activities, it is recommended to overlook or postpone corrections to avoid disrupting communication Hendrickson (1978, as cited in Brown, 2000, and Krashen, 1987) supports this perspective.

Error correction should be restricted to manipulative grammar practice, as more errors can be tolerated during communicative practice It is essential to focus students on form and correct their errors only when it does not disrupt communication This approach suggests that error correction is not necessary in free conversation but is appropriate for written work and grammar exercises.

Long (1988, as cited in Brown, 2000) argues that integrating error treatment and a focus on language forms within a communicative, learner-centered curriculum is most effective In contrast, when error correction becomes the primary focus in the classroom, it tends to be less effective in promoting language learning.

2.2.3 Who should Correct the Errors Edge (1990) advises that teachers should not correct the mistakes but they should show students that a mistake has been made and the students should correct the mistake themselves This kind of correction is called self-correction If the students cannot correct the mistake, teachers can ask another student or the whole class to correct This kind of correction is called peer-correction Peer-correction is very useful because students can learn how to cooperate and help them less dependent on teachers However, if students are not used to correcting each other, it can be useless or even damaging And if that student cannot correct his/her mistake nor other students in the class, then teachers have to correct it, called teacher-correction But Edge (1990) also emphasizes that “correction should not mean insisting on everything being absolutely correct Correction means helping students to become more accurate in their use of language” (p 33)

2.2.4 How should Errors be Corrected Hendrickson (as cited in Krashen, 1987) provides the two most widely used methods of correction:

- providing the correct form (“direct” correction)

Research on error correction remains inconclusive regarding the most effective method, as noted by Hendrickson and Brown (2000) Some studies indicate that direct correction may not be effective, as students who received direct feedback on their oral and written work did not demonstrate a reduction in errors.

Krashen (1987), on the other hand, claims that teacher correction is not effective and will not produce results that they expected

In summary, error correction is still an argumentative matter in foreign language learning and teaching However, we should also consider a taxonomy suggested by Bailey (1985, as cited in Brown, 2000):

2 To treat immediately or to delay

3 To transfer treatment (to, say, other learners) or not

4 To transfer to another individual, a subgroup, or the whole class

5 To return, or not, to original error maker after treatment

6 To permit other learners to initiate treatment

7 To test for the efficacy of the treatment

3 Opportunity for new attempt given

ERROR TREATMENT IN ORAL COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES

Many educators today emphasize that the primary goal of language teaching is not merely to convey information about the language, but to enhance students' ability to use it effectively for diverse communicative purposes As noted by Byrne (1991) and Harmer (1994), the focus of teaching should be on fostering communicative efficiency, which is why communicative activities are frequently integrated into the production stage of language learning.

According to Stern (1993), “the term ‘Communicative Activity’ designates motivated activities, topics and themes which involve the learner in authentic communication.” (p 177) Harmer (1994) uses the term “Communicative Output” to

“refer to activities in which students use language as a vehicle for communication because their main purpose is to complete some kinds of communicative tasks” (p 40)

According to Harmer (1994), effective oral communicative activities include reaching a consensus, discussions, relaying instructions, communication games, problem-solving, self-introduction, simulations, and role-plays Doff (1988) highlights the importance of guessing games, information gap exercises, and personal information exchanges Ur (2000) emphasizes pair work, group work, discussions, and role-plays as prevalent forms of oral communication Additionally, Littewood (1991) categorizes communicative activities into "functional communicative activities," which prioritize efficiency, and "social communicative activities," which aim for successful social interactions.

Although different methodologists suggest different activities, all of these activities create opportunities for learners to use English to communicate meaningfully with other learners

2.3.2 Error Correction in Oral Communicative Activities

Many researchers and educators, including Doff (1980), Gover & Walter (1983), Harmer (1994), and Ur (2000), concur that errors should be corrected during accuracy-focused activities, while they should be overlooked or postponed in fluency activities However, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the treatment of errors in communicative activities.

Edge (1990) emphasizes that "spoken accuracy is most important for our learners when they are practicing carefully something that has just been presented to them" (p 23) In contrast, Truscott (1999) argues that "oral correction does not improve learners’ ability to speak grammatically" (p 1), supporting his position with research findings from Frantzen.

Research by Kadia (1988), Schumann (1978), and DeKeyser (1993) indicates that oral correction is largely ineffective in language learning DeKeyser specifically noted that there was "no overall effect for correction" and suggested that "oral correction should be abandoned" (p 10).

(1987) also emphasizes that correction is not effective

However, many teachers believe that errors can be used “as a type of input to promote learners’ acquisition process” (Gebhard, 1996, p 189) Lynch and Maclean

(2003) also found out in their studies that “ the learner’s perception of the value and effect of feedback were matched by real improvements in their spoken performance” (p 1)

When teachers choose to address errors in oral communicative activities, they must consider several key questions: which errors warrant correction, the appropriate timing for corrections, who should be responsible for addressing these errors, and the methods to effectively treat them.

Hendrickson (as cited in Krashen, 1987) argues that corrections should focus on mistakes that hinder communication, are common among students, or are particularly bothersome In contrast, Littlewood (1991) suggests that teachers should refrain from correcting linguistic errors during communicative activities, as this may lead students to prioritize form over meaning Instead, corrections should occur in controlled, pre-communicative activities Additionally, Huynh Thi Thu Suong's thesis (2006) revealed that teachers primarily addressed lexical and discourse errors, with grammar errors being corrected more frequently than pronunciation errors.

Littlewood (1991) emphasizes that the primary goal of communicative activities is effective communication rather than perfect linguistic forms, suggesting that corrections should be postponed until after the activity Edge (1990) supports this by noting that correcting one error during the activity can lead to overlooking many others Instead, teachers should observe students, take note of common mistakes, and address them collectively after the activity However, Huynh Thi Thu Suong (2006) found that teachers tend to favor immediate correction techniques over delayed ones.

Many researchers and educators (Doff, 1980; Edge, 1990; Hadfield, 1997;

According to Harmer (1994), teachers should actively circulate in the classroom to listen to students, noting any mistakes they observe After the activity, these errors should be written on the board for the entire class to discuss and correct When addressing mistakes, teachers are encouraged to do so in a natural and relaxed manner.

In communicative activities, teachers can correct errors through explicit or implicit methods Explicit correction involves directly showing students their mistakes and providing the correct forms, while implicit correction may include using gestures, reformulating utterances, or indicating unclear statements through intonation Gebhard (1996) emphasizes the importance of making students aware of their mistakes, whereas Byrne (1991) suggests a more indirect approach to help learners recognize their errors independently Ur (2000) supports the idea that correction should be tactful and encouraging, fostering a positive learning environment.

Doff (1980) adds that teachers should “avoid humiliating students or making them feel that making a mistake is bad” (p 190) and teachers should correct errors quickly.

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

Ueno (1997, cited in Ueno, 2007) discovered that teachers often refrained from correcting students' errors to prevent discomfort or embarrassment, leading them to overlook mistakes In contrast, students expressed a preference for more frequent error correction Additionally, while teachers typically provided answers without encouraging self-correction, students desired the opportunity to be independent and take responsibility for their learning through self-correction.

Swift (2006) discovered a discrepancy between teachers' and students' perceptions of error correction in the classroom While teachers prioritized fostering students' confidence by responding positively to their communication, students often felt confused by this approach Some students recognized errors but were uncertain about them, leading to the belief that a lack of correction implied that teachers were not effectively teaching.

Huynh Thi Thu Suong (2006) found that students fear making errors during speaking activities and desire more frequent correction of their mistakes in class Her research revealed that while teachers primarily address lexical and discourse errors, students prefer corrections for grammatical errors over pronunciation errors Additionally, most students favor immediate correction techniques rather than delayed ones.

However, Ueno (1999) pointed out from his research that students who have different learning styles can have different attitudes towards error correction Dekeyser

(1995, as cited from Ueno, 1999) also indicated that “the role of error correction may vary depending on learner characteristics such as their age, IQ, learning styles and motivation.” (P 16)

Research indicates that there are varying perspectives on error correction among educators, researchers, teachers, and students According to Nunan (1993, cited in Ueno, 1999), a significant point of disagreement between students and teachers is the approach to error correction, highlighting the complexity of this instructional component.

SUMMARY

This chapter reviews literature and research on error treatment in foreign language teaching, focusing on errors in language learning, various perspectives on error treatment, and students' preferences regarding the timing and methods of error correction While numerous studies address spoken error treatment, there is a notable lack of research on error correction in oral communicative activities, particularly within Vietnamese classrooms.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study employs a descriptive quantitative design, aligning with Creswell's (1994) definition of quantitative research as a method that tests theories through measurable variables and statistical analysis The research questions and the study's nature necessitate this approach, as it allows for the examination of existing literature to identify known variables and theories that require testing and verification.

This study aimed to investigate a complex issue by comparing responses from a substantial group of participants, including both teachers and students The involvement of a large sample size ensured that the results were statistically significant and generalizable, necessitating a descriptive quantitative design.

The nature of the data also required questionnaires with multiple-choice statements and statements to rate on a Likert-scale, as stated by Freeman and Long

Questionnaires are valuable tools for language learners to self-report their attitudes and personal characteristics (1993, p 36) Additionally, Likert-scale questions are particularly effective in collecting respondents' views, opinions, and attitudes on various language-related topics (Brown, 1991, p 41).

The collected data was systematically categorized and analyzed to compute frequencies and percentages These frequencies and percentages were then correlated with other data categories, including central tendencies (mean, mode, and median) and variabilities (standard deviation and variance), as outlined by Seliger and Sholamy (2000).

To gain descriptive insights from study data, researchers commonly utilize three procedures: frequencies, central tendencies (primarily the mean), and variabilities (including standard deviation and variance) While this information may serve as the primary objective of the research, it is also essential for conducting more complex analyses and enhances the researcher's understanding of the data.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE

This research focused on the teachers and students at the Youth Foreign Language School in Ho Chi Minh City, a prominent institution with around 3,300 students across 165 classes and 97 teachers Recognized for its success, the school effectively employs communicative activities in its teaching methods.

Communicative classes prioritize providing students with opportunities to practice English through interactive activities These classes are categorized into three proficiency levels: Elementary, Pre-intermediate, and Intermediate, with each level requiring six months to complete and divided into three two-month sub-classes While the school offers various classes focusing on grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, this study specifically targets the communicative classes across the three proficiency levels.

Purposive sampling, based on the convenience and availability of respondents, was employed to select participants for the study According to Creswell (1994), purposive sampling is considered "less desirable" than random sampling, as it limits the generalizability of the findings to the broader population To enhance the study's validity, only teachers who had experience teaching all three levels were included, even though they were not actively teaching all levels at the time of the study A total of 21 teachers participated, representing 97 teachers at YFLS.

A total of 195 students, representing a larger group of 3,300 students at YFLS, participated in the study Teachers who had instructed all three educational levels were invited to join, and upon their agreement, their students were also invited to participate Participation in the questionnaires was voluntary for the students.

INSTRUMENTS

Descriptive quantitative research relies on various data collection instruments that necessitate responses from subjects, as noted by Seliger and Shohamy (2000) These instruments encompass tests, surveys, questionnaires, self-reports, interviews, and observations.

The survey questionnaire was chosen for this study due to its effectiveness in gathering data from large groups, as noted by Seliger and Shohamy (2000) It allows learners to self-report their attitudes and personal characteristics (Freeman and Long, 1994), and is suitable for exploring and describing people's views and opinions (Brown & Rodgers, 2002) Additionally, questionnaires are low-cost, easy to administer, and enable rapid data collection (Creswell, 2002) However, there are some disadvantages associated with their use, as highlighted by Seliger and Shohamy (2000).

One significant issue with questionnaires is their low response rate, which can compromise the validity of the findings Additionally, questionnaires may not be suitable for individuals who cannot read or write, particularly in second language research, where participants often struggle with reading and responding in a second language Consequently, there is no guarantee that the questions in a questionnaire are fully understood and accurately answered by the subjects.

To enhance the response rate, questionnaires were distributed directly to students and teachers, and they were translated into Vietnamese by a professional translator, ensuring that participants could comprehend each item and provide accurate answers.

There were two types of questionnaires: teacher questionnaires and student questionnaires The questionnaires were divided into two sections:

The first section comprised seven short-answer questions focusing on respondents' demographics, including gender and age, as well as their experience in studying or teaching English It also inquired about the duration of their engagement with communicative activities or classes, along with the levels of the classes they are studying or teaching.

Section two included statements rated on a five-point Likert scale and rank-ordered scales, along with multiple-choice options for respondents These statements, labeled as S1, S2, etc., were designed to gather insights into the perspectives of students and teachers regarding error correction in communicative activities.

Statements 1,2 and 3 were to ask the respondents’ opinions about error correction in general

Statement 4 was about the types of errors should be corrected

Statements 5, 6 and 7 concentrated on the respondents’ point of views on when to correct errors

Statements 8 and 9 asked about opinions on who should correct the errors and how the errors should be corrected

Statements 10 and 11 concerned with the respondents’ viewpoints on non- correction in communicative activities

In the Likert-scale statements, responses were weighted as follows: "strongly disagree" received 1 point, "disagree" 2 points, "undecided" 3 points, "agree" 4 points, and "strongly agree" 5 points Similarly, for the multiple-choice statements, the weights were assigned as: 1 point for "unhappy," 2 points for "embarrassed," 3 points for "normal," 4 points for "happy," and 5 points for "others."

The questionnaires were initially composed in English and subsequently translated into Vietnamese, with a professional translator reviewing the translations to enhance the instrument's reliability The Vietnamese versions were utilized for data collection to ensure that all respondents comprehended each item, thereby increasing the research's validity.

In January 2008, a pilot test was conducted in Vietnamese with three teachers and ten students at YFLS to ensure the clarity of the items for both teachers and students Follow-up interviews with two teachers and seven students provided direct feedback on the layout, format, and content of the questions As a result, unclear statements and questions were corrected or removed The pilot study indicated that teachers desired more input on certain questions, leading to the addition of the prompt, “Please add any other comment,” in the teacher questionnaire for further insights Additionally, the pilot test offered valuable experience regarding the timing of questionnaire administration.

PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION

In February 2008, questionnaires were distributed to 21 teachers and 195 students across 15 classes over a two-week period Participants were selected based on a self-selection principle, where teachers consented to participate in the research, and their students were subsequently invited to respond to the questionnaire, although participation was voluntary for the students.

In each class, questionnaires were distributed to both the teacher and students, with the researcher providing a detailed explanation of each item Participants were instructed to mark their answers for every statement, which took approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete The collected responses were then analyzed for data insights.

PROCEDURES FOR DATA ANALYSIS

To enhance data reliability, responses were analyzed using SPSS software by two separate individuals The initial data entry was performed by the first individual, while the second individual randomly selected cases to verify the accuracy of the entered data.

The frequencies and percentages were then calculated for each item The data analysis was descriptive and frequency distributions were employed

The responses from the teacher and student questionnaires were analyzed using Independent Samples T tests to determine if there were significant differences between their responses According to Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs (2003), the Independent Samples T test is employed to assess hypotheses regarding the differences in means between two samples.

T tests are essential for analyzing statistics from two samples, allowing researchers to assess the difference between two population means through hypothesis testing and confidence intervals According to Seliger and Shohamy (2000), T tests are instrumental in determining whether the differences between two samples are statistically significant.

The Levene test was utilized to assess the Equality of Variances between teachers and students, with a significance level of 0.05, as recommended by Hoang Trong & Chu N.M Ngoc (2008) If the Levene test result was below 0.05, the T test results for "Equal Variances not assumed" were applied; conversely, if the result was 0.05 or higher, the "Equal Variances assumed" T test results were used The significance level for the Independent-Samples T test was also set at 0.05, and data analysis was conducted using SPSS 11.5 for Windows.

SUMMARY

This chapter outlines the methodology employed in the study, beginning with the rationale for utilizing a descriptive quantitative approach It details the delimitation of the study and the selection process for subjects Additionally, the chapter explains the research instrument and presents the pilot test conducted Finally, it describes the procedures for data collection and the subsequent analysis of the data.

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

4.1.1 The Students There are 195 students participated in the study 121 students (62.1%) were female and 74 students (37.9%) were male Most students were between the ages of 21 to

The study revealed that 46.7% of participants were aged 23, while 26.2% were between 18 and 20 years old A minority, 2.6%, were under 18, and 24.6% were over 24 Among the respondents, 69.2% were university students, with only 1.0% attending high school, and 29.7% were employed.

The majority of students have been studying English for over seven years, with 44.1% having studied for 7 to 10 years, 25.6% for 10 to 13 years, and 6.2% for more than 13 years Notably, around two-thirds (66.7%) of students have attended YFLS for less than three months, while only a small fraction, 3.6%, have been enrolled for more than a year.

A significant portion of students, 59.5%, had attended communicative classes for less than three months, while only 6.7% had studied for more than 12 months and 3.1% for over 24 months Additionally, 61.5% of the surveyed students were enrolled in elementary classes, with 19% in pre-intermediate and 19.5% in intermediate classes Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information of the participating students.

Table 1: Descriptive Analysis of Student Participants

GENDER Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

AGE Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

JOB Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

ENGLISH Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

From 1 year to under 3 years 14 7.2 7.2 7.7

From 3 years to under 5 years 11 5.6 5.6 13.3

TIME OF STUDYING AT YFLS Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

From 1 month to under 3 month 87 44.6 44.6 66.7

COMMUNICATIVE CLASSES Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

From 1 month to under 3 month 80 41.0 41.0 59.5

From 3 months to under 6 months 38 19.5 19.5 79.0

CLASS LEVEL Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

A total of 21 teachers participated in the study, with a gender distribution of 47.6% female and 52.4% male The majority (95.2%) were under 40 years old, and 81.0% had over three years of experience as English teachers Specifically, 28.6% had 3 to less than 7 years, 42.9% had 7 to less than 15 years, and 9.5% had more than 15 years of experience Only 19.0% had less than three years of teaching experience All teachers were employed at YFLS, where 42.9% had worked for less than three years, 28.6% for 3 to less than 10 years, and 18.6% for over 10 years They all taught communicative classes, with 38.1% having less than three years of experience in this area The experience in communicative classes was distributed as follows: 28.5% had 3 to less than 7 years, 28.6% had 7 to 15 years, and 4.8% had over 15 years Most teachers were responsible for classes across various proficiency levels, although some were assigned to only one or two levels at the time of the research All teachers held diplomas, with 66.7% possessing a Bachelor’s degree, 16.7% holding a Master’s degree, and another 16.7% working towards a Master’s degree, while none had a doctorate.

Table 2: Descriptive Analysis of Teacher Participants

GENDER Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

AGE Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

ENGLISH Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

YFLS Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

COMMUNICATIVE CLASSES Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

CLASS LEVEL Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

DIPLOMA (S) or DEGREE (S) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: STUDENTS’VIEWPOINTS

This section presents the student’s viewpoints about error correction in oral communicative activities The results will be organized by statements

In response to the statement "I am not afraid of making errors when I am speaking in class," a majority of students, 115 (59.0%), expressed agreement, indicating a positive attitude towards making mistakes in a learning environment Conversely, 58 students (29.8%) disagreed with the statement, while 22 students (11.3%) remained neutral This data highlights a significant level of confidence among students regarding their speaking abilities in class.

Table 3: S1 I am not afraid of making errors when I am speaking in class

N5 0 missing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Disagree 54 27.7 27.7 29.7 Undecided 22 11.3 11.3 41.0 Agree 87 44.6 44.6 85.6 Strongly agree 28 14.4 14.4 100.0

The result of S2 which aimed at finding out how students felt when they made an error showed that over 40.0% of students felt “normal” However, there were 30 students

(15.4%) felt “unhappy” and more than one third of students (37.4%) were embarrassed with their errors (Table 4)

Table 4: S2 When I make an error, I feel:

Unhappy 30 15.4 15.4 15.4 Embarrassed 73 37.4 37.4 52.8 Normal 83 42.6 42.6 95.4 Happy 3 1.5 1.5 96.9 Others 6 3.1 3.1 100.0 Total 195 100.0 100.0

Table 5 reveals that 59.0% of students expressed a lack of fear regarding making errors while speaking in class, while 42.6% viewed errors as a natural part of the learning process.

Over 65% of students expressed a desire for their teachers to correct their speaking errors during class, indicating a strong expectation for feedback In contrast, 29.8% preferred not to receive corrections, while only 4.6% of respondents chose an alternative option.

Table 5: S3 I don’t want my teacher to correct my errors when I am speaking in class

In responding to S4 which asked them to rank the type of errors which they most liked to be corrected, nearly two-thirds of students, 127 of them, (65.1%) chose

A significant majority of students, 46.7%, prioritized the correction of phonological errors, while only 13.3% emphasized the importance of correcting syntactic errors and 6.7% focused on lexical errors Additionally, 14.9% of students expressed a desire for discourse errors to be addressed There was a lack of consensus among students regarding the second most critical type of error to correct, with 33.8% selecting lexical errors, 23.6% opting for syntactic errors, 23.1% choosing discourse errors, and 19.0% favoring phonological errors.

Table 6: S4 Among these types of errors: phonological errors, syntactic errors, lexical errors, discourse errors, the errors that I want to be corrected most are

N5 0 missing Phonological errors Syntactic errors Lexical errors Discourse errors

S5, S6 and S7 aimed at finding student’s preference about when teachers should correct their errors Table 7 shows that the majority of respondents (91.8 %) agreed with

A significant majority of students, 91.8%, expressed a preference for their teachers to correct errors immediately rather than after the activity, as indicated by a mean score of 4.3 (Appendix E) This highlights the importance of timely feedback in the learning process.

Thus, 54 students (27.7%) felt “happy” and 116 of them (59.5%) felt “normal” when teachers corrected their errors at the time they made the errors (Table 8) 88 respondents

(45.1%) were not happy when teachers did not correct their errors immediately (Table 9)

Table 7: S5 I prefer my teacher to correct my errors immediately rather than after the activity

Table 8: S6 When my teacher corrects my errors immediately, I feel:

Table 9: S7 when my teacher corrects my errors after the activity, I feel:

A significant majority of respondents, 91.3% (178 students), preferred that their teachers explicitly indicate the parts of their sentences that contained errors, rather than remaining silent or providing vague feedback Additionally, 83.6% (163 students) expressed a desire for teachers to provide the correct answers, while 12.3% (24 students) preferred to be shown their errors and correct them independently Only a minimal 2.1% of participants indicated a preference for a peer to address their mistakes.

Table 10: S8 When I make an error, I want:

N5 0 missing Teacher tells explicitly Teacher indicates, but not tell explicitly Teacher doesn’t say anything

Table 11: S9 When I make an error, the way I want it to be corrected most is

Teacher shows errors and let me correct 24 12.3 12.3 95.9 Teacher asks a friend to correct 4 2.1 2.1 97.9

According to Table 12, 42.1% of participants attributed the lack of correction for errors to their teacher encouraging free speech, while 11.3% believed it was to avoid upsetting students Conversely, nearly half of the participants held a negative view, with 32.8% thinking the teacher was too busy to correct them and 13.8% feeling that the teacher did not care about their contributions.

Table 12: S10 When I know my friends are making an error but my teacher does not correct, I think the reason is:

N5 0 missing Teacher is busy Teacher does not care

Teacher wants us to speak freely

Teacher does not want to upset us Count 64 27 82 22

In responding to S11 “Generally, I want my teacher to let us speak freely without correction”, 41 students (21.0%) strongly disagreed and 123 (63.1%) disagreed while 13

(6.6%) agreed and 18 (9.2%) undecided The result showed that students would like their teachers to correct their errors even in oral communicative activities, which focus on fluency rather than accuracy (Table 13)

Table 13: S11 Generally, I want my teacher to let us speak freely without correction:

Responses from student questionnaires indicated that while over half of the surveyed students felt unafraid of making errors during class speaking, more than one third expressed fear of making mistakes This finding contrasts with Huynh Thi Thu Suong's (2006) research, which revealed that students were generally afraid of making errors The discrepancy may be attributed to the focus of Suong's study on spoken errors across various stages of the learning process, including presentation and practice, whereas the current study specifically examined oral communicative activities.

Similarly, nearly half of the students believed that they would feel “normal” when they made a mistake while the other half of them thought they would feel “unhappy” or

Nearly two-thirds of surveyed students expressed a desire for their teacher to correct their speaking errors, despite feeling embarrassed This aligns with findings from Huynh Thi Thu Suong (2006) and Ueno (2007) The preference for correction suggests that, although students engage in communicative activities, they remain influenced by traditional learning methods that prioritize accuracy over fluency.

Students primarily expect their teachers to correct phonological errors, a finding that contrasts with Huynh Thi Thu Suong’s (2006) research This discrepancy may arise because the current study focuses on error correction during oral communicative activities, specifically when students are speaking, whereas Suong's study addresses spoken errors in a broader context.

Students expressed a strong preference for immediate correction of their errors by teachers, favoring clear communication of mistakes along with the correct answers They preferred this approach over vague indications of errors or relying on peers for assistance This finding contrasts with Ueno's conclusions.

In 2007, it was observed that students desired independence and responsibility in their studies This trend may be attributed to the perception that many students exhibit a passive approach to learning, as noted by several teachers.

While over half of the students surveyed expressed a positive attitude towards non-correction, the other half felt that a lack of correction indicated teachers were either too busy or indifferent This aligns with Swift S (2006), who noted that without correction, students may become confused and perceive that teachers are not effectively teaching Despite some students believing that teachers encourage free speaking to avoid upsetting them, the majority preferred that their mistakes be corrected rather than being allowed to speak freely without feedback.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: TEACHERS’VIEWPOINTS

This section outlines the teacher's perspectives on error correction during oral communicative activities The findings will be structured according to specific statements, with additional comments from the teachers provided after each result to offer further insights into their responses.

In a study addressing the statement "I think my students are not afraid of making errors when they are speaking in class," a significant majority of teachers, 57.1%, disagreed, while 33.4% agreed and 9.5% remained undecided.

Teachers noted that many students exhibited shyness and a lack of confidence, leading to a negative perception of making mistakes due to fear of ridicule from peers However, some educators recognized that this initial shyness could be overcome with encouragement, suggesting that fostering a supportive environment would help students gain confidence in their speaking abilities over time.

Table 14: S1 I think my students are not afraid of making errors when they are speaking in class

N! 0 missing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

According to the results presented in Table 15, a minority of teachers, specifically 14.3%, believed that their students would experience unhappiness upon making a mistake In contrast, the majority, comprising 57.1% of the teachers, felt that their students would feel "embarrassed," while 23.8% of the teachers thought that students would have other feelings regarding their mistakes.

Low-level students often feel embarrassed when they make mistakes, while high-level students understand that errors are a normal part of the learning process and no longer experience that embarrassment.

Table 15: S2 when my students make an error, they feel:

Unhappy 3 14.3 14.3 14.3 Embarrassed 12 57.1 57.1 71.4 Normal 5 23.8 23.8 95.2 Others 1 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 21 100.0 100.0

The survey results from S1 and S2 indicate that most teachers believe their students fear making mistakes and hold a negative attitude towards errors Specifically, 80.9% of teachers disagreed with the notion that students preferred not to have their mistakes corrected, while only 14.3% agreed with this statement Teacher 6 noted that students actually appreciate corrections, as they view them as opportunities for learning.

Teacher 12 believed that students wanted to be corrected, but how teacher corrected was very important because if this was not done tactfully teachers could discourage them

Teacher 7 emphasized that excessive correction by teachers could discourage students from speaking, while Teacher 20 suggested that instructors should communicate their correction approach at the start of the course to prevent students from feeling disheartened Additionally, Teacher 21 noted that the impact of correction may vary based on individual student personalities.

Table 16: S3 My students don’t want me to correct their errors when they are speaking in class

In a survey regarding error correction priorities, 81.0% of teachers identified phonological errors as the most critical to address Syntactic and lexical errors were ranked second by nearly one third of the participants, while 42.9% placed lexical errors in third Additionally, over one third of the surveyed teachers provided insights on their ranking preferences.

A significant portion of teachers (38.1%) ranked syntactic and discourse errors as the fourth most critical issues in language learning The majority, including Teachers 7, 15, 19, 20, and 21, emphasized the need to address phonological errors, which were identified as the most common mistakes among students Correct pronunciation is essential for effective communication; however, Teachers 15, 19, 20, and 21 noted that they often focused on correcting more prevalent errors, such as "ending sounds" and "consonant sounds," as well as specific words frequently mispronounced by students, like "because" and "shower."

Table 17: S4 Among these types of errors: phonological errors, syntactic errors, lexical errors, discourse errors, I think the errors need to be corrected most are:

N! 0 missing Phonological errors Syntactic errors Lexical errors Discourse errors

Table 18 reveals that 28.6% of surveyed teachers agreed with the statement, matching the 28.6% who disagreed, while 14.3% remained neutral This indicates a diversity of opinions among teachers regarding the timing of error correction.

Teachers 6 and 7 explained that if they delayed after the activities, students would forget the errors and next time, they would make the errors again Teacher 15 added that he corrected immediately because students should get familiar with interruption when they were speaking, even it was for correction Teachers 8 and 21, however, believed that if they corrected immediately, students would be distracted Moreover, if correcting after the activities, they had the chance to explain the errors and everybody in the class, not only the student who made the mistake, could learn from the errors Teachers 8, 12, 19 and 20 stated that it would depend on the activity Teacher 20 explained that if students were working in pairs, she would go around and help them to correct the mistakes immediately, but if it was a presentation, she would wait until the speaker finished, then explain the errors to the whole class Other teachers maintained that they only corrected immediately if the error was too serious that other students could not understand

Table 18: S5 Correcting immediately is more effective than delaying after the activity.

A survey revealed that 61.9% of teachers believe their students prefer immediate correction, while 23.8% think their students do not want corrections right away Additionally, 14.3% of the teachers were undecided on the matter.

Table 19: S6 My students don’t want me to correct immediately

A study revealed diverse opinions among teachers regarding the timing of corrections, with 42.9% believing students would remember their mistakes, while 47.6% disagreed Additionally, 9.5% of teachers were neutral on the matter One teacher noted that students might retain their errors, as they typically took about five minutes to present, suggesting that reminders could reinforce their memory of the mistakes.

Table 20: S7 My students will not remember the errors if they are corrected after the activity

The findings from S5, S6, and S7 revealed varying teacher perspectives on the timing of corrections in the classroom Some educators advocated for immediate correction, while others favored postponing feedback until after the activity Notably, the number of teachers in favor of immediate correction was nearly equal to those who preferred a delayed approach.

Tables 21 and 22 present the findings from S8 and S9 regarding error correction methods preferred by teachers A significant 61.9% of respondents indicated that teachers should explicitly identify the incorrect parts of sentences Meanwhile, 27.3% preferred that teachers indicate the presence of errors without specifying them, and 10.0% believed that teachers should refrain from commenting, allowing students to express themselves freely Overall, the majority of surveyed teachers favored direct feedback on errors.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: COMPARISONS OF STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ VIEWPOINTS

COMPARISONS OF STUDENTS’ AND TEACHERS’ VIEWPOINTS

This section of Chapter 4 analyzes and compares the responses of students and teachers regarding error correction in oral communicative activities A detailed examination of the frequency and percentage of responses will be conducted statement by statement To determine if there are significant differences between the responses of teachers and students, Independence Sample T tests will be employed, with a significance level established at 0.05.

A recent study revealed a disparity between students' and teachers' perceptions of fear regarding speaking errors While 57.1% of teachers believed their students were afraid of making mistakes, only 29.8% of students shared this sentiment Conversely, 49% of students expressed confidence in their ability to speak without fear of errors, whereas only 32.4% of teachers thought their students felt the same way This indicates that students generally possess a more positive attitude towards making mistakes, with a mean score of 3.41 compared to the teachers' mean score of 2.80 Furthermore, a T test demonstrated a significant difference between the responses of students and teachers (p value = 0.017).

Table 25: Crosstabulation of S1 and groups

Table 26: Mean, Standard Deviation, Median, Mode by teacher and student groups for S1

Group N Mean Std Deviation Mean Mode

In a survey addressing students' and teachers' perceptions of mistakes, the responses revealed a notable alignment in feelings of unhappiness, with a similar number of both groups expressing this sentiment However, a significant disparity emerged regarding feelings of embarrassment; 57.1% of teachers believed their students felt embarrassed after making mistakes, while only 37.4% of students reported feeling the same way.

A study revealed that while 43% of students felt "normal" after making mistakes, only 23.8% of teachers believed their students experienced this sense of normalcy This discrepancy suggests that teachers may perceive their students' feelings about errors as more negative than the students actually feel The findings were further analyzed using a T test.

(Appendix G, p 97) showed that there was no significant difference between teacher’s responses and student’s responses as shown in Tables 27 and 28 (p value=0.437).

In the context of S3, a significant disparity emerged between students and teachers regarding error correction during speaking activities While students expressed a preference for less correction, 90% of the surveyed teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with this sentiment, indicating a more critical stance on the issue.

A significant 65.6% of students expressed disagreement, while the percentage of teachers and students who agreed with the statement was nearly identical Notably, 14.9% of students strongly agreed with the sentiment, "I don’t want my teacher to correct my errors when I am speaking," in contrast to no teachers who shared this strong agreement The T test results (Appendix G, p 97) indicated a significant difference in responses between teachers and students at a p-value of 0.

Most teachers perceived that their students desired corrections for their mistakes; however, students appeared to prefer that teachers refrain from correcting them, allowing for more freedom in their speech.

A survey revealed that both teachers and students identified phonological errors as the most critical type of errors needing correction Notably, 81% of teachers prioritized phonological errors, compared to 65.1% of students Additionally, students expressed a desire for their teachers to address other error types, with 13.3% wanting corrections for syntactic errors, 6.7% for lexical errors, and 14.9% for discourse errors.

(Appendix G, p 97) showed that no significant differences were found between teacher’s responses and student’s responses as shown in Tables 31 and 32 (p value=0.584)

Table 31: Crosstabulation of S4-1 and groups

Table 32: Mean, Standard Deviation, Median, Mode by teacher and student groups for S4-1

A significant majority of students (91.8%) expressed a preference for their teachers to correct errors immediately rather than postponing feedback after the activity Additionally, 87.2% of the surveyed students indicated that they would feel more comfortable with this immediate correction approach.

Students felt "normal" or "happy" when teachers corrected mistakes right away However, teachers had varying opinions on the timing of corrections, with nearly half (48.6%) favoring immediate feedback, while about one-third preferred a different approach.

A significant 31.8% of respondents favored delayed correction Analysis of student responses revealed mean scores of S5 (4.30), S6 (3.15), and S7 (2.31), indicating a more positive attitude towards immediate correction compared to teachers, whose mean scores were S5 (3.19), S6 (2.76), and S7 (3.05).

Table 33: Mean, Standard Deviation, Median, Mode by STUDENT group for S5, S6, and S7

N Mean Std Deviation Median Mode

Table 34: Mean, Standard Deviation, Median, Mode by TEACHER group for S5, S6, and S7

N Mean Std Deviation Median Mode

In response to how teachers should address errors, most students preferred that teachers clearly identify the specific part of the sentence that was incorrect The second choice for many was for teachers to indicate that there was an error without explicitly stating what it was, while a significant number of students expressed dissatisfaction when teachers chose to ignore the error altogether Teachers' responses mirrored those of the students, with a majority agreeing that explicitly pointing out errors was the most effective approach, followed by indicating errors without explicit clarification, and lastly, saying nothing about the errors.

Nearly one-third of teachers surveyed preferred the approach of "indicates but not tell explicitly," while 9.5% believed that "say nothing" should be the top choice A T test indicated significant differences between teachers' and students' responses to S8, with a p-value of 0.000 The results of the first and second choices for S8 are detailed in Tables 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Teacher tells explicitly % within group 61.9% 91.3% 88.4%

Teacher indicates, but not tell explicitly % within group

Teacher does not say anything % within group 9.5% 1.0% 1.9%

Teacher tells explicitly % within group 28.6% 8.2% 10.2%

Teacher indicates, but not tell explicitly % within group

Teacher does not say anything % within group 14.3% 5.1% 6.0%

Responses to S9 revealed that both teachers and students predominantly preferred the approach of having the teacher provide the correct answers for error correction However, approximately 25% of teachers advocated for a method where they would highlight errors and allow students to correct them, a preference shared by only 12.3% of students Interestingly, some students expressed a desire for peer assistance in correcting errors, a method not supported by any teachers Despite these differing preferences, the beliefs of teachers and the expectations of students regarding error correction methods appeared to align, as no significant differences were observed between their responses.

Teacher gives correct answers % within group 71.4% 83.6% 82.4%

Teacher shows errors and let me correct % within group

Teacher asks a friend to correct % within group 0% 2.1% 1.9%

Responses to S10 “When someone made a mistake and teacher did not correct it,

A significant portion of students (41.5%) and teachers (28.6%) believe that the primary intention behind classroom discussions is to encourage free expression In contrast, 23.8% of teachers and 11.3% of students feel that the aim is to avoid upsetting students Additionally, 19.0% of teachers share similar sentiments regarding classroom dynamics.

SUMMARY

This chapter discusses the responses regarding error correction from both teachers and students It begins with a descriptive analysis of the surveyed participants, followed by the findings related to three research questions: students' viewpoints, teachers' viewpoints, and a comparison of both perspectives The results and their implications are thoroughly examined within the chapter.

Chapter 5 aims to present conclusions and recommendations for future research based on the findings regarding students' and teachers' perspectives on error correction in oral communicative activities This chapter is structured to include an overview of the research study, a summary of the findings, recommendations for practice, and final conclusions.

OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

This study explored the perspectives of students and teachers on error correction in oral communicative activities at YFLS, aiming to determine whether teachers' beliefs align with students' preferences and expectations The significance of this research lies in two key areas: it aids teachers in understanding student preferences for error correction, enabling them to adopt effective strategies for enhanced learning, and it addresses a gap in existing literature, as previous studies have not focused on error correction in oral communicative activities within Vietnamese classrooms Data was collected through a survey involving 195 students and 21 teachers over two weeks in February 2008, utilizing two types of questionnaires—one for students and one for teachers Each questionnaire comprised two sections: the first gathered demographic information, while the second collected viewpoints on error correction through 11 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale, rank-ordered scales, and multiple-choice options The questionnaires were initially written in English and translated into Vietnamese to ensure comprehension Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software, calculating frequencies and percentages for responses, which were then compared between student and teacher questionnaires.

Independent Sample T tests to see whether the responses between the two groups for each item differed significantly or not The significance level was set at 0.05.

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

The results of the study can be summarized as follows:

1 Many students were not afraid of making errors when they were speaking and felt “normal” if they made a mistake, there was only a small number of students who were not confident and thus felt afraid and thought that making mistakes was

Most students, regardless of their feelings about making mistakes, anticipated that their teachers would correct their errors, particularly phonological ones They preferred immediate feedback from teachers rather than waiting until the end of an activity or self-correcting Over half of the students thought that a lack of correction from teachers was due to a desire not to upset them or to encourage free speech; however, the majority expressed a preference for receiving corrections rather than speaking freely without guidance.

2 The majority of teachers believed that their students wanted them to correct their mistakes and that helping students say “right” was one of the most important jobs of teachers, therefore, they tried to correct as many mistakes as they could Phonological errors were the ones that they thought they should help students correct most However, they did not agree when to correct: while some of the teachers believed that they should correct the error immediately so that students could reproduce it correctly, other teachers preferred delaying it after the activity so that they did not distract students or hinder communicative purpose of the activity Similarly, most teachers (71.4%) believed that they should give students the correct answer if they found an error whereas some teachers (23.8%) thought that they should give students the chance to correct themselves They also did not share the same attitude towards non-correction: half of them thought that students would know that if the teachers did not correct, it was because the teachers wanted the students to speak freely and did not want to upset students while the other half of the teachers worried that if they ignored their students’ errors, their students would think that the teachers were busy or the teachers did not care what the students were saying Additionally, most of them didn’t agree that they should let students speak freely without correction

3 There were some similarities between student’s preferences and expectations and teacher’s beliefs Both students and teachers thought that students wanted teachers to help them correct mistakes Both groups also agreed that phonological errors were the type of errors that should be treated most Each of both groups expressed positive and negative attitude towards non-correction as well: half of the two groups had positive attitude and half of them had negative attitude Both teachers and students also agreed that students should not be allowed to speak freely without correction However, student’s preferences and expectations differed from teacher’s beliefs in three ways First, while most teachers believed that students were afraid of making errors, most students thought that they were not Second, students wanted their errors be treated immediately whereas some teachers thought they should delay after the activity And third, students preferred their teachers to give them the correct answer if they found a mistake; on the other hand, some teachers believed that they should give students the chance to correct themselves.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the study's findings, the following recommendations are presented: (a) suggestions for educators teaching communicative classes, (b) guidance for instructors in communicative settings, and (c) proposals for future research endeavors.

5.3.1 Recommendations for Teachers of Communicative Classes

While students often anticipate immediate error correction from teachers, and educators view this as a key responsibility, it is essential that teachers do not correct every mistake.

According to Hendrickson (1978, as cited in Krashen, 1987; Harmer, 1994; Ur, 2000), teachers must select suitable strategies based on the activities to effectively support students while ensuring that the communicative purpose of the activity is not compromised.

Teachers should correct the errors that make the speech incomprehensible or misunderstanding as well as the errors that many students make or are repeated many times as Krashen (1997) recommended

When students collaborate in pairs or groups, it is essential for teachers to circulate and provide assistance as needed Immediate correction of errors that hinder clarity or lead to misunderstandings is crucial However, as suggested by Edge (1990) and Littlewood (1991), teachers should postpone addressing errors that do not impact overall communication until after the activity.

Teachers should first allow students to self-correct or seek input from their peers by asking, “What do you think?” Although students may initially resist this method, consistent encouragement from teachers will build their confidence and help them learn to correct themselves or accept corrections from others.

Teachers must meticulously prepare for activities by assisting students in correcting errors during controlled practice and providing clear instructions before engaging in oral communicative tasks Well-structured activities enhance students' confidence, alleviating concerns about making mistakes during oral communication.

Some students, particularly newcomers, often feel anxious and anticipate immediate corrections from teachers It is essential for educators to clarify that the goal of oral communication is to convey meaningful messages rather than solely focusing on correctness By providing encouragement and timely assistance, teachers can help these students adapt over time, as they are typically in the minority.

5.3.2 Recommendations for Students of Communicative Classes

Students should understand that the teaching and learning process involves various stages, including presentations, explanations, and practices During the practice stage, activities are designed to guide learners from heavily teacher-supported controlled practice to more automatic and autonomous language use (Ur P., 2002) In oral communicative activities, students enter the "output" stage, where the emphasis is on communication rather than accuracy (Harmer J., 2002).

To enhance student confidence in oral communication, it is essential to intervene by pointing out mistakes and emphasizing accuracy, as highlighted by Harmer J (2002, p 49) Students should prioritize achieving the communicative purpose of the activity over focusing on language form, allowing them to engage without fear of errors This approach fosters a supportive environment where students learn to accept corrections from peers, as teachers typically provide assistance only when necessary Ultimately, collaboration among students becomes crucial for their learning and success in communicative activities.

Students should also focus on other controlled practice activities, as these provide opportunities for teachers to assist in correcting mistakes and boosting confidence for participation in oral communication.

5.3.3 Recommendations for Future Research The recommendations for teachers and students of communicative classes may not fit all contexts at all time Due to the limitations of the study mentioned on page 5: (a) collecting information from a purposive sample; (b) using the questionnaire with multiple- choice statements, ranked-ordered scale statements and statements with Likert- scale that can prevent students and teachers from expressing more opinions, (c) researcher’s lack of time and experience, thus four suggestions for further research are offered:

1 Research which uses other data collection methods in addition to questionnaires/survey, such as interviews which can gather in-depth information about student and teacher’s viewpoints or class observations which can obtain data on how teachers treat errors in class Each method has its own strength and weakness, the use of various methods will help to triangulate the data and eliminate weakness of each of the research methods

2 Research on teacher’s most effective methods in correcting student’s errors in oral communicative activities in Vietnamese classes

3 Research on whether students make any progress after correction

4 Research on how student’s personality affects their preferences on error treatment methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the study:

1 Teachers and students are still affected profoundly by the traditional method of teaching which emphasizes on accuracy more than fluency Although students are taking part in oral communicative activities, the majority of them expect that their errors will be corrected immediately They also expect that their teachers will give them the correct answer rather than just indicate that there is something wrong and let them to correct the error themselves Many of them will feel disapointed if teachers let them to speak freely without correction Teachers believe that error correction is very important in the process of language learning and it is also one of the teacher’s key responsibilities Therefore, they try to correct as many errors as they can Teachers will feel uncomfortable if they cannot correct a mistake when they hear it Thus, most students expect that their teachers are “masters” and teachers tend to see themselves as “controllers”, not as “facilitators” as Harmer J (1999)’s suggestions when they are in a communicative activity

2 Although language learning is more successful if teachers’ beliefs and practices are matched with students’ preferences and expectations as stated by Harmer J.( 1992), Nunan D (1999), Ur P (2000), teachers who can approach “new” methods in language learning and teaching should help students understand that in oral communicative activities, the focus is on fluency and not on accuracy, so students should not worry about their errors and mistakes as far as these errors and mistakes do not affect the communicative purpose of the activities Teachers should also help students learn to speak freely, correct themselves when their communication with other students are damaged and accept other students’ correction In reality, with teachers’ encouragement and support, students will be more confident to participate in oral communicative activities

3 In the case that teachers have to correct an error, they should do it in a tactful and encouraging manner because many students still find making errors “embarrassing” and students don’t want to “lose face”, although many of them are aware of the fact that they can learn from teachers’ correction Dekeyser (1995, as cited in Uneo, 1998) indicates that error correction should vary depending on students’ characteristics such as their age, IQ, learning styles and motivation, Parrino A (1997) also states that students’ personality, age, social status, interests, motivation all have an influence on their perfomance, therefore, it is also better if teachers know about students before they correct their errors because “ we are not just correcting an error, we are correcting a particular second language speaker making an error” (Parrino A., 1997, p 12)

In foreign language learning, making errors is inevitable, and addressing these mistakes is crucial for effective teaching Understanding when and how to correct errors significantly impacts the success of language acquisition This research provides valuable insights into students' preferences for error correction during oral communication, guiding teachers in selecting appropriate correction methods Additionally, it fills a gap in the study of error correction within Vietnamese classrooms The findings are beneficial not only for the specific population studied but also for educators and learners in other English and foreign language communicative classes.

Brown J.D & Rodgers T.S (2002) Doing Second Language Research China: Oxford University Press

Brown H.D (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching USA: Prentice Hall Regents

Byrne D (1991) Teaching Practice Handbook England: Heinemann

Byrne D (1991) Teaching Oral English Singapore: Longman

Creswell J.W (1994) Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches USA: Sage Publications

Clanfield L.& Foord D (2007) Classroom Management: the Role of Correction in

English Teaching Retrieved on September 19,2007 from http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/methodologyarticles/classroomman agement

Dogget G (1986) Eight Approaches to Language Teaching ERIC – Clearhouse on Languages and Linguistics, Q&A Đỗ Văn Thắng& Phan Thành Huấn (2003) SPSS Textbook (for Students of Social

Sciences and Humanities Faculties) Ho Chi Minh City: National University

Doff A (1988) Teach English Great Britain: Cambridge University Press

Error correction is a crucial aspect of language learning, as highlighted by Donald R in his work on the subject Effective methodologies for addressing mistakes can significantly enhance the learning process Additionally, Edge J (1990) emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of errors and the appropriate correction techniques in his publication These resources provide valuable insights for educators aiming to improve their teaching strategies in language instruction.

Gebhard J.G (1996) Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language United States: The University of Michigan Press

Gower R & Walters S (1983) Teaching Practice Handbook England: Heinemann

Griffiths B (2007) Monitoring Speaking Retrieved on September 18,2007 from http://www.ac-orleans-tours.fr/anglais- lp/telechargement/plp/activities/monitoring_speaking.pdf

Hadfield J (1997) Classroom Dynamics (Resource books for teachers – series editor Alan Maley) Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Harmer J (1992) The Practice of English Language Teaching Great Britain:

Hinkle D.E., Wiersma W & Jurs S.G (2003) Applied Statistics for the Behavioral

Sciences USA: Houghton Mifflin Company

Hoàng Trọng & Chu Nguyễn Mộng Ngọc (2008) Data Analysis with SPSS

Ho Chi Minh City: Hồng Đức Publisher

Huỳnh Thị Thu Sương (2006) An Investigation into the Treatment Methods of

Spoken Errors in EFL Classes at Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation III

( Master Thesis in TESOL, National University of Ho Chi Minh City,2006)

Illes Z (1996) Collaborative Repair in EFL Classroom Talk (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 399774)

Ihde T.W (1995) Teaching Irish to Americans: Focus on Feedback (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No ED 407868)

Ihde T.W (1993) Error Correction in L1 and L2 Language Learning (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No ED 374678)

Klippel F (1998) Keep Talking United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press

Kramsch C (1994) Context and Culture in Language Teaching Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Krashen S.D (1987) Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition Great Britain: Prentice-Hall International

Krathwohl D.R (1999) Methods of Educational and Social Science Research Great Britain: Longman

Kubota M (1991) Corrective Feedback by Experienced Japanese EFL Teachers (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 386022)

Larsen-Freeman D & Long M.H (1993) An Introduction to Second Language

Acquisition Research New York, USA: Longman

Lee N (1990) Notion of “Errors” and Appropriate Corrective Treatment

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 354747)

Littlewood W (1991) Communicative Language Teaching Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press

Littlewood W.T (1987) Foreign and Second Language Learning (language- acquisition research and its implications for the classroom) Great Britain:

Locke L.F & Spirduso W.W & Silverman S.J (2000) Proposals That Work USA: Sage Publications, Inc

Lynch T & Maclean J (2003) Effect of Feedback on Performance: A Study of

Advanced Learners on an ESP Speaking Course (ERIC Document

Lynch T (1996) Communication in the Language Classroom Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Malamah-Thomas A (1991) Classroom Interaction Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Mumford S & Darn S (2005) Classroom Management: Speaking Correction

Techniques Retrieved on September 19,2007 from http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/methodologyarticles/classroomman agement

Munby J (1994) Communicative Syllabus Design Great Britain: Cambridge

Nguyễn Thị Thanh Phượng (2005) Reaffirmation of Accreditation and Quality

Improvement as a Journey: A Case Study (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas Tech

Nunan D (1999) Second Language Teaching & Learning Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers

Platt J.C.R.J.& Platt H (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and

Applied Linguistics Great Britain: Longman

Parrino A (1997) Correct Me to Tears: The Importance of Knowing the Learners before Correcting Errors (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No

Paulston C.B.& Bruder M.N (1976) Teaching English as a Second Language –

Techniques and Procedures Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers, Inc

Richards J & Rodgers T.S (1986) Approaches and Methods in language Teaching

Seliger H.W and Sholamy E (2000) Second Language Research Methods

Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Stern H.H (1993) Issues and Options in Language Teaching (edited by Patrick Allen and Birgit Harley) – Hong Kong: Oxford University Press

Swift S (2006) An ELT notebook: Deciding what and when to correct Retrieved on September 21, 2007 from file://D:MA\thesis\ An ELT Notebook Deciding What and When to Correct htm

Tanner R (1992) Erroroleplay Retrieved on September 18, 2007 from http://www.eltforum.com/pdfs/topic3/Correc_pt2_3.pdf

Trochim W.M.K (2001) The Research Methods Knowledge Base United States: Atomic Dog Publishing

Truscott J What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction Retrieved on September 21,2007 from file://D:MA\thesis\ What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar

Ueno J (1998) Learning Styles and Error Correction: How do Learning Styles Affect

Students’ Perception towards Error Correction in Foreign Language Classroom

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED429452)

Ur P (1990) Discussions that Work Great Britain: Cambridge University Press

Ur P (2002) A Course in Language Teaching Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

4 How long have you studied English? ………

5 How long have you studied English at YFLS? ………

6 How long have you studied in communicative classes? ………

7 Which class are you studying?

PART TWO: QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PREFERENCES REGARDING

ERROR CORRECTION IN ORAL COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES

STATEMENT 1: I am not afraid of making errors when I speak in class (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 2: When I make an error, I feel (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 3: I don’t want my teachers to correct my errors when I speak in class (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 4: Among these types of errors: phonological errors, syntactic errors, lexical errors, discourse errors, the types of errors that I want to be corrected most are (please rank from

1 to 4 in order of importance)

STATEMENT 5: I prefer my teacher to correct my errors immediately rather than after the activities (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 6: When my teacher corrects my errors immediately, I feel (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 7: When my teacher corrects my errors after the activity, I feel (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 8: When I make an error, I want (please rank from 1 to 3 in order of importance) my teacher to tell me explicitly which part of the sentence is wrong my teacher to indicate that there is something wrong but does not tell which part of the sentence is wrong my teacher to say nothing about the error

STATEMENT 9: When I make an error, the way I want it to be corrected most is (please circle the number of your answer)

1 my teacher shows me what the errors are and give the correct answers

2 my teacher shows me what the errors are and let me correct my errors

3 my teacher asks my friends to help me correct the errors

STATEMENT 10: When I know my friends are making an error but my teacher does not correct,

I think the reason is (please rank from 1 to 4, from the most frequent to the least frequent)

He/She is not really listening to what we are speaking

He/She does not care what we are speaking

He/She wants us to feel free to speak

He/She does not want to upset us

STATEMENT 11: Generally, I want my teacher to let us speak freely without correction (please circle the number of your answer)

3 How long have you been teaching English? ………

4 How long have you been teaching English at YFLS? ………

5 How long have you been teaching communicative classes? ………

6 Which classes are you teaching? (please tick all that apply)

7 What diploma(s) or degree(s) do you hold, if any? ………

PART TWO: QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT ERROR

CORRECTION IN ORAL COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES

STATEMENT 1: I think my students are not afraid of making errors when they speak in class

(please circle the number of your answer)

5 Strongly agree Please add any comments ………

STATEMENT 2: When my students make an error, they feel (please circle the number of your answer)

STATEMENT 3: My students don’t want me to correct their errors when they speak in class

5 Strongly agree Please add any comments………

STATEMENT 4: Among these types of errors: phonological errors, syntactic errors, lexical errors, discourse errors, I think the types of errors that need to be corrected most are (please rank from 1 to 4 in order of importance)

STATEMENT 5: Correcting immediately is more effective than delaying after the activities

STATEMENT 6: My students don’t want me to correct immediately (please circle the number of your answer)

5 Strongly disagree Please add any comments………

STATEMENT 7: My students will not remember the errors if they are corrected after the activity,

STATEMENT 8: When I find an error, I think I should (please rank from 1 to 3 in order of importance) tell my students explicitly which part of the sentence is wrong indicate that there is something wrong but not tell which part of the sentence is wrong not tell anything about the error

STATEMENT 9: If the errors should be corrected, I think I should (please circle the number of your answer)

1 show them what the errors are and give the correct answers

2 show them what the errors are and let them correct their errors

3 ask another student to correct the errors

4 others: (please explain)……… Please add any comments………

STATEMENT 10: If my students make an error and I don’t correct it, my students might think the reason is (please rank from 1 to 4, from the most frequent to the least frequent)

I am not really listening to what they are speaking

I do not care what they are speaking

I want them to feel free to speak

I don’t want to upset them

STATEMENT 11: Generally, I want to let my students speak freely without correction (please circle the number of your answer)

Bảng câu hỏi này nhằm thu thập ý kiến của bạn về việc sửa lỗi trong giờ thực hành giao tiếp Chúng tôi rất trân trọng ý kiến trung thực của bạn, và cam kết giữ kín thông tin này chỉ phục vụ cho mục đích nghiên cứu Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của bạn.

PHẦN I: THÔNG TIN BẢN THÂN

3 Công việc của bạn là gì? ………

4 Bạn đã học tiếng Anh bao lâu? ……… (năm/tháng)

5 Bạn đã học tiếng Anh tại trường NgoạI Ngữ Thanh Niên được bao lâu ?

6 Bạn đã học tiếng Anh giao tiếp được bao lâu?……… (năm/tháng)

7 Bạn đang học lớp nào?

PHẦN II: PHẦN CÂU HỎI

CÂU 1: Khi tôi nói trong lớp, tôi không sợ nói sai (xin vui lòng khoanh tròn một lựa chọn của bạn từ câu 1 đến câu 3)

CÂU 2: Khi nói sai, tôi cảm thấy

CÂU 3: Tôi không muốn Thầy (Cô) sửa lỗI khi tôi đang nói trong lớp

CÃU 4: Trong những lỗi sau: lỗi phát âm, lỗi ngữ pháp, lỗi từ vựng, lỗi giao tiếp, lỗi mà tôi muốn Thầy (Cô) sửa nhất là: (xin vui lòng xếp theo thứ tự từ 1 đến 4)

Lỗi phát âm Lỗi từ vựng

Lỗi ngữ pháp Lỗi giao tiếp

Tôi mong muốn Thầy (Cô) sửa lỗi ngay lập tức khi tôi nói sai, thay vì chờ đến khi kết thúc hoạt động.

CÂU 6: Khi tôi nói sai, Thầy ( Cô) sửa lỗi ngay khi tôi đang nói, tôi cảm thấy (xin vui lòng khoanh tròn một lựa chọn của bạn)

CÂU 7: Khi tôi nói sai, Thầy (Cô) để đến cuối giờ mới sửa, tôi cảm thấy (xin vui lòng khoanh tròn một lựa chọn của bạn)

CÂU 8: Khi tôi nói sai, tôi muốn (xin vui lòng xếp theo thứ tự từ 1 đến 3)

Thầy (Cô) nói rõ cho tôi biết tôi đang sai ở đâu

Thầy (Cô) ra hiệu là tôi đang nói sai nhưng không nói cho tôi biết sai ở đâu

Thầy (Cô) không nói gì về lỗi sai đó

CÂU 9: Khi phải sửa lỗi mà tôi nói sai, tôi muốn (xin vui lòng khoanh tròn một lựa chọn)

1 Thầy (Cô) nói cho tôi biết lỗi sai và sửa lỗi giúp tôi

2 Thầy (Cô) nói cho tôi biết lỗi sai và để tôi tự sửa

3 Thầy (Cô) yêu cầu một bạn khác sửa giúp tôi

4 Khác: (xin vui lòng giải thích thêm)………

Khi các bạn khác nói sai mà Thầy (Cô) không sửa, tôi thường nghĩ đến những lý do sau: Thầy (Cô) có thể muốn khuyến khích sự tự tin của học sinh, hoặc có thể Thầy (Cô) tin rằng việc tự nhận ra lỗi sẽ giúp học sinh học hỏi tốt hơn Một lý do khác có thể là Thầy (Cô) không muốn làm mất thời gian trong lớp học, và lý do ít nghĩ đến nhất là Thầy (Cô) có thể không nhận ra lỗi đó.

Thầy (Cô) đang bận và không thật sự lắng nghe chúng tôi nói gì

Thầy (Cô) không quan tâm chúng tôi đang nói gì

Thầy (Cô) muốn chúng tôi được tự do nói chuyện

Thầy (Cô) không muốn chúng tôi thất vọng vì nói sai

Tôi mong muốn Thầy (Cô) cho phép chúng tôi giao tiếp tự do mà không bị sửa lỗi.

XIN CHÂN THÀNH CÁM ƠN BẠN

BẢNG HỎI DÀNH CHO GIÁO VIÊN

Bảng câu hỏi dưới đây được thiết kế để thu thập ý kiến của Quý Thầy (Cô) về việc sửa lỗi trong giờ thực hành giao tiếp Chúng tôi rất mong Quý Thầy (Cô) dành thời gian quý báu để trả lời bảng câu hỏi này Những câu trả lời của Quý Thầy (Cô) sẽ đóng vai trò quan trọng trong sự thành công của đề tài và sẽ chỉ được sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu Chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của Quý Thầy (Cô).

PHẦN I: THÔNG TIN BẢN THÂN

2 Thầy (Cô) bao nhiêu tuổi:………

3 Thầy (Cô) đã dạy tiếng Anh bao lâu? ……… (năm/tháng)

4 Thầy (Cô) đã dạy tiếng Anh tại trường Ngoại Ngữ Thanh Niên được bao lâu?

5 Thầy (Cô) đã dạy các lớp tiếng Anh giao tiếp được bao lâu?………(năm/tháng)

6 Thầy (Cô) đang dạy lớp nào? (xin vui lòng đánh dấu vào tất cả những lớp Thầy (Cô) dạy)

7 Thầy (Cô) đã học xong bằng cấp gì?

PHẦN II: PHẦN CÂU HỎI

Tiêu đề	Error Correction in Oral Communicative Activities: Students’ and Teachers’ Viewpoints
Tác giả	Hoàng Thị Phương Thảo
Người hướng dẫn	Nguyễn Thị Thanh Phượng, PH.D.
Trường học	Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and Humanities
Chuyên ngành	TESOL
Thể loại	Thesis
Năm xuất bản	2009
Thành phố	Ho Chi Minh City

Định dạng
Số trang	118
Dung lượng	1,99 MB