An investigation into efl teachers and students attitudes towards oral error correction at esc english language center hcmc m a

STATEMENT STATEMENT OF OF OF ORIGINALITY ORIGINALITYI certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled: AN AN INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INTO INTO INTO EFL EFL

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HOCHIMINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

AT AT ESC ESC ESC ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE CENTER CENTER CENTER HCM HCM

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

By

NGUYEN NGUYEN PHUONG PHUONG PHUONG THAO THAO

Supervised by

DOAN DOAN HUE HUE HUE DUNG DUNG DUNG,,,, Ph.D Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, JUNE 2016

My sincere thanks also go to the director as well as students and teachers atESC English language center, especially those who willingly took part in the datacollection for the study If it had not been their support, this study would not havebeen possible.

I would like to extend my deep gratitude to my dear friends, especially Do ThiThanh An, Ho Thi Bich Nhu, Le Thi Yen Uyen and Vo Thi Thien An for theiruseful advice and encouragement which helped me go through many ups anddowns during the course of this endeavor

And last but not least, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my beloved family forthe endless love and care they have given to me Although they barely touchedupon a single page of this thesis, they would not know that it was theirwholehearted support and enormous sacrifice that kept me fighting till the end tohave the study completed

Many sincere thanks to them all, the great contributors to this thesis

STATEMENT STATEMENT OF OF OF ORIGINALITY ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

AN

AN INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INTO INTO INTO EFL EFL EFL TEACHERS' TEACHERS' TEACHERS' AND AND AND STUDENTS' STUDENTS' ATTITUDES ATTITUDES TOWARDS TOWARDS TOWARDS ORAL ORAL ORAL ERROR ERROR ERROR CORRECTION CORRECTION

AT AT ESC ESC ESC ENGLISH ENGLISH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE CENTER CENTER CENTER HCM HCM

in terms of the statement of the Requirements for the Theses in Master's Programissued by the Higher Degree Committee This thesis has not been submitted for theaward of any degree or diploma in any other institutions

Ho Chi Minh City, 2016

NGUYEN PHUONG THAO

RETENTION RETENTION OF OF OF USE USE

I hereby state that I, NGUYEN PHUONG THAO, being the candidate for thedegree of Master of Arts in TESOL, accept the requirements of the Universityrelating to the retention and use of Master's theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in theLibrary should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordancewith the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan orreproduction of the thesis

Ho Chi Minh City, 2016

NGUYEN PHUONG THAO

TABLE TABLE OF OF OF CONTENTS CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

Statement of originality ii

Retention of use iii

Table of contents iv

List of abbreviations viii

List of tables ix

List of figures x

Abstract xi

CHAPTER CHAPTER 1: 1: 1: INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1 1 1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Aims of the study 3

1.3 Research questions 3

1.4 Significance of the study 4

1.5 Scope of the study 5

1.6 Outline of the thesis 5

CHAPTER CHAPTER 2: 2: 2: LITERATURE LITERATURE LITERATURE REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW 7 7 2.1 Attitudes 7

2.1.1 Definition of attitudes 7

2.1.2 The importance of attitudes and how to change them 7

2.2 Errors 9

2.2.1 Definition of errors in EFL teaching context 9

2.2.2 Errors, Mistakes and Attempts 10

2.2.3 Views on errors 11

2.2.4 Sources of errors 12

2.2.5 Types of errors 13

2.3 Error correction 15

2.3.1 Definition of error correction in EFL teaching context 15

2.3.2 Views on error correction 16

2.3.2.1 For error correction 16

2.3.2.2 Against error correction 17

2.4 Oral error correction 18

2.4.1 Views on oral error correction 18

2.4.2 Dealing with oral errors 20

2.4.2.1 What types of oral errors should be corrected? 21

2.4.2.2 When should oral errors be corrected? 23

2.4.2.3 How should oral errors be corrected? 24

2.4.2.3.1 Lyster and Ranta's model 24

2.4.2.3.2 Some other techniques 26

2.4.2.4 Who should do the correction 28

2.4.2.4.1 Self-correction 29

2.4.2.4.2 Peer correction 30

2.4.2.4.3 Teacher correction 31

2.4.3 Influential factors in correcting oral errors 32

2.4.3.1 Individual learner characteristics 32

2.4.3.2 Contextual factors 32

2.4.3.3 Creating a supportive learning environment 33

2.4.3.4 Students' conscious perception 34

2.5 Studies on students' and teachers' attitudes towards the correction of oral English errors 35

2.5.1 Studies in other countries 35

2.5.2 Studies in Vietnam 38

2.6 Conceptual framework of the study 39

CHAPTER CHAPTER 3: 3: 3: METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY 43 43 3.1 Research design 43

3.2 Research site 43

3.3 Participants 44

3.3.1 Students 44

3.3.2 Teachers 45

3.4 A brief description of Solutions coursebook 46

3.5 A brief description of PET speaking test 47

3.6 Research instruments 49

3.6.1 Questionnaires 49

3.6.2 Interviews 54

3.6.3 Observations 58

3.7 Data collection procedure 60

3.8 Data analysis procedure 62

CHAPTER CHAPTER 4: 4: 4: RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS AND AND AND DISCUSSION DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 63 63 4.1 From questionnaires 63

4.1.1 General attitudes towards errors and the correction of oral English errors .63

4.1.2 Towards types of oral English errors that need correcting 71

4.1.3 Towards when oral English errors should be corrected 74

4.1.4 Towards the correction techniques 76

4.1.5 Towards who should correct oral English errors 79

4.1.6 Towards influential factors in correcting oral English errors 82

4.1.7 Towards effectiveness of oral English correction 85

4.2 From interviews 93

4.2.1 General attitudes towards errors and the correction of oral English errors .93

4.2.2 Towards types of English errors that should be corrected when students have already made themselves understood 96

4.2.3 Towards when oral English errors should be corrected 97

4.2.4 Towards students' capacity of self-correction and peer correction 98

4.2.5 Towards correction techniques used in the classroom 99

4.2.6 Towards influential factors in correcting oral English errors 100

4.2.7 Towards effectiveness of oral English correction being done in class 102

4.2.8 Towards how the current oral English correction satisfies the students 103 4.3 From observations 105

4.4 Discussion 107

CHAPTER CHAPTER 5: 5: 5: CONCLUSION CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 116 116 5.1 Conclusions 116

5.1.1 Students' attitudes 116

5.1.2 Teachers' attitudes 117

5.1.3 Students' versus teachers' attitudes 118

5.2 Pedagogical implications 119

5.3 Limitations of the study 123

5.4 Recommendations for further study 123

REFERENCES

REFERENCES 125 125

APPENDICES

APPENDICES 132 132

LIST LIST OF OF OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

M : Mean

KET: Key English Test

P: Significance (two-tailed)

PET: Preliminary English Test

Sig (2-tailed): Significance (two-tailed)

LIST LIST OF OF OF TABLES TABLES

Table 2.1 Summary of sources of errors 13

Table 2.2 Summary of types of errors 15

Table 2.3 Summary of correction techniques 28

Table 3.1 Summary of students' background information 45

Table 3.2 Summary of teachers' background information 46

Table 3.3 PET speaking assessment scales 48

Table 3.4 Summary of questionnaire items 54

Table 3.5 Interview items 57

Table 3.6 Observation checklist 60

Table 4.1 T-test on students' and teachers' attitudes towards the necessity and benefits of errors 65

Table 4.2 T-test on students' and teachers' attitudes towards too much correction 68 Table 4.3 Summary of students' and teachers' preferences for error types to be corrected 73

Table 4.4 Summary of students' and teachers' attitudes towards the correction techniques 78

Table 4.5 T-test on students' and teachers' attitudes towards explicit correction 78

Table 4.6 Summary of students' and teachers' attitudes towards who should do the correction 81

Table 4.7 Summary of students' and teachers' attitudes towards influential factors in correcting oral English errors 83

Table 4.8 Summary of oral English errors made and corrected during observations .106

LIST LIST OF OF OF FIGURES FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the study 41Figure 4.1 Students' and teachers' responses to the necessity and benefits of errors 64Figure 4.2 Students' and teachers' responses to the necessity of oral English errorcorrection 66Figure 4.3 Students' and teachers' responses to the bad consequences of too muchcorrection 66Figure 4.4 Students' and teachers' responses to whether students feel embarrassedwhen being corrected 68Figure 4.5 Students' and teachers' responses to whether students feel dissatisfied if

no correction were done 69Figure 4.6 Students' and teachers' mean of responses to types of errors that should

be corrected 71Figure 4.7 Students' and teachers' mean of responses to correction timing 74Figure 4.8 Students' and teachers' mean of responses to correction techniques 76Figure 4.9 Students' and teachers' mean of responses to who should correct oralEnglish errors 80Figure 4.10 Students' and teachers' mean of responses to influential factors incorrecting oral English errors 82Figure 4.11 Students' and teachers' responses to students' capacity to realize andunderstand the corrections 86Figure 4.12 Students' and teachers' responses to error repetition 87Figure 4.13 Students' and teachers' responses to speaking improvement 88Figure 4.14 Students' and teachers' responses to correction effectiveness andsatisfaction 89

Although much has been written about the correction of oral English errors,new findings continue to emerge as investigations into its different aspects,including those on students' and teachers' attitudes, have been carried out Manylanguage educators and researchers keep insisting that matching the preferencesand expectations of students and teachers is significant for successful languagelearning, as a result, much research into the participants' attitudes has beenconducted across countries However, there seems to be a dearth of such studies inVietnamese context Therefore, this study aimed to elicit PET students' andteachers' attitudes towards the correction of oral English errors in the context ofESC English language center in order to seek for the similarities and differencesbetween them In addition, effectiveness of the current practice was also evaluated

To this end, questionnaires were administered to 144 PET students and 11 teachers

to explore their viewpoints Moreover, interviews and classroom observations wereincluded to provide more in-depth information as well as real data which makeroom for reliable findings It was found out that the students and their teachersshared beliefs in most of the aspects, however discrepancies and inconsistenciesdid reveal themselves

CHAPTER CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION1.1.

1.1 Background Background Background to to to the the the study study

English has gained utmost importance and plays a vital role in the life of everysingle person nowadays To be proficient in this language understandably hasbecome the must and the thirst of many people in different parts of the world.English, therefore, has constituted an essential component of teaching curricula atany Vietnamese school from elementary to advanced level, especially at languagecenters whose main focus is nothing other than practicing its four skills, namelyreading, writing, listening and speaking

Along the history of English teaching and learning, speaking for a long timewas undervalued as language teachers devoted most of the class time to enhancingstudents' grammatical competence Teaching of speaking skill then was merelyrepetition and memorization of English patterns and dialogues in which errorswere considered a sin and thus were corrected the moment they occurred However,things have changed dramatically since English emerged as an international means

of communication Speaking in today's world is seen as a crucial part of Englishlearning and teaching as the ability to successfully communicate in a variety ofcontexts is higher appreciated than mastery of reading or writing skills As Abbott(1981) claimed, 'just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof oflanguage learning lies in the learner's ability to perform and communicate in theforeign language' Such high demand of speaking mastery has resulted in arefreshing change in the way speaking is taught in classrooms Students are nowexpected to be given opportunities to freely take part in real-life communicativeactivities in which they can use the English at their disposal to express theiropinions, to exchange information or to get their messages across withoutworrying too much about making errors as well as their teachers' reactions towardsthem (Burkart, 1998)

Making errors is natural in a student' language learning, however, how to dealwith them is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon While written correctioncauses relatively less pressure and difficulty on both teachers and students as it isoften done individually through papers with a lot of time provided, oral correction,

most of the time done in front of the class, requires a split-second decision whichmust take into consideration a lot of factors In response to those concerns, awidely accepted approach is that oral errors made during communicative activitiesshould be tolerated as long as they do not interfere with the message (Brown, 1980;Harmer, 2001; Saville-Troike, 2006) The goal of those activities, as explained bythose researchers, lies in students' attempts to make themselves understood byusing their current English proficiency to the fullest Errors committed then arejust evidence of students' exploring the new language and their effort to get theirmessages across The correction of oral English errors in such circumstances henceshould be selectively and constructively so as to preserve students' motivation inspeaking and provide needed help for their speaking development.

Oral error correction, without doubt, is an important element in Englishteaching and learning that makes it one of the tasks a language teacher usuallyperforms in the classroom However, such practice may end in a failure, asTruscott (1999) insisted, due to a great many problems both teachers and studentsmust overcome According to him, correction may produce not onlyembarrassment and inhibition among students but also a generally negativeattitudes towards the class and probably towards the language itself once teachersare unable to tailor error correction for individual students Therefore, Oladejo(1993) believed that in order to do effective error correction, classroom cannotafford to be based rigidly on any standardized practice derived from the opinions

of linguists and teachers alone, but it must be flexible enough to incorporate thepreferences and needs of the language learners A match between the twostakeholders in the classrooms, hence is extremely important for successfullanguage learning Nevertheless, students' attitudes seem to be neglected during thecorrection process since teachers usually perform this pedagogical activity based

on their own opinions and assumptions How students perceive the corrections orhow they want it to be done appears to have no place in what are taken intoconsideration by teachers

During four years teaching at ESC, the researcher has found out that otherteachers, like her, have not ever asked themselves whether the ways they corrected

their students' oral errors were appropriately They just performed the correctionbased on their own experience believing that the students would reap the benefitswithout ever investigating their opinions Noticeably, a number of teachersadmitted that their corrections were not as effective as they had expected due to thefact that some students did not take in the corrections seriously and their speakingdid not improve as much as expected Such disclosure really confused theresearcher and made her bring the effectiveness of the current oral Englishcorrection into question To what extent the teachers' and students' attitudescorrespond as well as how they view the effectiveness of error correction duringcommunicative activities accordingly should be satisfactorily answered.

Therefore, this study is conducted with the hope that it can cast light on theattitudes towards the correction of oral English errors among teachers and students

at ESC Thanks to that, the teachers will have an opportunity to reflect on theirown practices to see to what extent their students' and their own opinions havecorresponded Hence, modifications can be made by the teacher to providestudents with their favored correction methods As a result, a desired learning andteaching outcome will be more possible to achieve when there is a certainagreement between teachers and students on what is happening in the classroom

1.2.

1.2 Aim Aim Aimssss of of of the the the study study

This study is an attempt:

(i) to investigate the attitudes of PET preparation students and their teacherstowards oral English correction when they are involved in communicativeactivities

(ii) and to have a general understanding about the effectiveness of the correctionpractice being done in class

1.3.

1.3 Research Research Research questions questions

In order to achieve those aims, the following questions are bound to answer:(1) What are the general attitudes of PET preparation students and their teachers atESC English language center towards the necessity and aspects of oral Englishcorrection?

(2) What are the similarities and differences between the students' and their

teachers' attitudes towards oral English correction?

(3) How do the students and their teachers evaluate the effectiveness of thecorrection?

1.4.

1.4 Significance Significance Significance of of of the the the study study

Attitudes are among the most important constructs in social psychology asthey encompass powerful tendencies to feel, believe and act in a positive ornegative way (Maio & Augoustinos, 2005) Likewise, in teaching and learningprocess, attitudes of teachers and students are of paramount importance as theyunderpin and shape the way teaching and learning is done Hence, a match to awide extent between teachers' and students' attitudes is highly appreciated since itoften entails greater success in second or foreign language learning However, this

is not necessarily the case since teachers and students may hold different evenopposing viewpoints about what should be practiced in the classroom

The correction of oral English errors, at first sight, appears to be verystraightforward, that is, if an error occurs, teachers just correct it However, it isactually a very complex issue that involves a lot of decisions on the part of theteachers in a split second To correct or not, what errors to correct, how to correct,when to correct and who to correct are the questions that can not be answeredsatisfactorily due to some influential factors such as individual studentcharacteristics and the particular teaching context To make the matter worse, eachstudent may react differently to the correction given by their teacher, not onlybecause of their own personalities or English proficiency but also because of whatthey themselves think, feel and believe It will be extremely good if teacherscorrect errors in the way which is appreciated by students, who then are verysatisfied and motivated to continue their speaking and English learning Otherwise,

a failure may result when teachers perform what they themselves believe andstudents expect a totally different thing Teachers may think that they are doing theright thing by not correcting immediately and frequently, but students may assumethat their teachers do not know English well enough to give appropriate feedbackand do not care how well their students learn English (Kavaliauskiene et al., 2009).Disagreement on what should be done in the classroom may lead to a

breakdown in the teaching and learning process, especially on the part of thelearners when their needs, preferences and expectations are not met For thisreason, a careful examination of the attitudes towards the correction of oralEnglish errors between the two groups is extremely necessary Once knowledge ofstudents' attitudes is gained by teachers, they have an opportunity to reflect on theirown and refine their feelings, beliefs and actions to better suit their students'.Additionally, teachers can share their own opinions with students to make themunderstand the reasons why they deal with oral errors in such a way, help studentschange their attitudes properly and hence seek for agreement on how the correctionshould be done in the classroom In this way, oral correction actually leads tolanguage development when the people involved share their attitudes about theteaching practice and are satisfied by the way it is done to a larger extent.

1.5.

1.5 Scope Scope Scope of of of the the the study study

Error correction may refer to the correction made in a variety of activitieswhich aim at developing students' language skills and areas However, the focus ofthis study is on error correction done in speaking sections of the coursebook'Solutions 8' and 'Solutions 9' used widely by PET exam preparation students atESC English language center only Those speaking activities (hereinafter may bereferred to as communicative activities) practice students' communication skills byrequiring them to work in pairs, to make a conversation or to express themselves

on a topic Accordingly, data obtained will help the researcher figure out theparticipants' attitudes towards the correction done in those speaking activities only.Attitudes towards error correction done in other sections of the coursebook, henceare not explored

1.6.

1.6 Outline Outline Outline of of of the the the thesis thesis

The organization of the thesis is as follows:

Chapter 1 briefly presents the background to the study, the research objectivesand research questions Besides, the significance of the study is emphasized andthe scope of its is also provided

Chapter 2 synthesizes the popular beliefs among researchers and linguistsregarding the correction of oral English errors which form the theoretical

background for the study Moreover, findings of previous research in the area arealso discussed to shed light on the present study.

Chapter 3 clarifies the methodology which underpins the study including theresearch site, the participants, the research instruments, the data collection as well

as the data analysis procedure

Chapter 4 deals with the results obtained through the data collection whichanswer for the research questions stated in the first chapter In addition, adiscussion is also included as an attempt to interpret and explain the findings.Chapter 5 devotes itself to summarize the findings of the study and providespedagogical implications In addition, limitations of the study are acknowledgedand suggestions for future research are also given out by the researcher

CHAPTER CHAPTER 2 2 LITERATURE LITERATURE REVIEW REVIEW

This chapter devotes itself to reviewing related literature on errors, errorcorrection and the correction of oral errors without forgetting to provide a briefpresentation on attitudes In addition, findings of studies on teachers' and students'attitudes towards the correction of oral English errors are also presented as anevidence and reference for what underpins this teaching practice across classrooms

in different parts of the world including Vietnam Finally, a conceptual frameworkwill be suggested to guide and further elaborate the research

2.1.

2.1 Attitudes Attitudes

2.1.1 2.1.1 Definition Definition Definition of of of attitudes attitudes

Attitudes have long been considered central to psychological research due tothe strong influence they exert on the way people think and behave in their lives.Spencer (1862, as cited in Mostyn, 1978), one of the first psychologists to employthis term, regarded attitudes as a mental concept which determine how peoplearrive at the correct judgements Similarly, Allport (1935, as cited in Schwarz &Bohner, 2001) defined attitudes as a mental and neural state of readiness,organized through experience, exerting a directive and dynamic influence upon theindividual's response to all objects and situations in which it is related Someresearchers, on the other hand, emphasized the evaluative component of attitudes

as they believed that attitudes are in fact likes and dislikes (Bem, 1970, as cited inSchwarz & Bohner, 2001), degree of favor and disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)

or preferences (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010) Schafer and Tait (1986) suggested arelatively compact definition, which is used to guide the current study, as theypointed out that attitudes are an individual's feelings, beliefs and tendencies to acttowards other people, objects and ideas Accordingly, terms like preferences,viewpoints, perspectives or opinions can be used flexibly to refer to a person'sattitudes as they are closely related (Mostyn, 1978; Jones, 1980; Kristie & Eirich,2009)

2.1.2 2.1.2 The The The importance importance importance of of of attitudes attitudes attitudes and and and how how how to to to change change change them them

Our everyday life is believed to be under the strong influence of attitudes.They decide how we behave towards others, what we decide to do and whether or

not to accept a new way of doing things Realizing the significance of thispsychological issue, Schafer and Tait (1986) insisted that it is crucial to understandthe existing attitudes of people before any innovation is carried out Once suchknowledge is gained, possible strategies for influencing them can be made tofacilitate the program Otherwise, nothing other than failure will result as people'sattitudes may be in opposition to the new ideas.

However, attitudes once established are difficult to change as it is not easy torevise a person's feelings, beliefs and thoughts of actions about a particular object

or phenomenon Thus, according to Maio and Augoustinos (2005), only whendirect, positive interactions and persuasive messages are provided that has thepower to change attitudes by changing people's beliefs about the object of themessage Along the same lines, Schafer and Tait (1986) suggested providinginformation and changing what is believed as the first step in changing attitudes Inaddition, existing attitudes may also be supported by misinformation and a specificpersonal need Therefore, as they further noted, if persuasive messages fail toprovide more accurate information and address the target audience's needs, attitudechange may not be brought about sufficiently Noticeably, Mostyn (1978) putmuch emphasis on face-to-face communication where the target audience arehighly involved and the persuader is allowed to adjust the arguments directly Andlast but not least, the credibility of the persuader, the way he or she communicateswith the audience as well as the rapport between them are highly appreciated inleading to desired attitude change (Schafer and Tait, 1986)

Briefly speaking, because of their utmost importance, understanding theexisting attitudes and changing them if they are undesirable is necessary inbringing about the success of any program However, as Pickens (2005) admitted,attitude transformation does take time, effort and determination since attitudes,which have been formed for a long time, are enduring and thus difficult to change.Thus, the very first step is to determine what exactly need to be changed andestablish both short and long objectives to deal with them (Schafer and Tait, 1986)

2.2 Errors Errors

2.2.1 2.2.1 Definition Definition Definition of of of errors errors errors in in in EFL EFL EFL teaching teaching teaching contexts contexts

Considered an integral part of any teaching and learning process, errors areviewed as the use of a linguistic item in a way which a fluent or native speaker ofthe language regards as showing faulty or incomplete learning (Longman, 1993).According to Corder (1967), errors refer to regular patterns in the learners' speechthat consistently differ from the target language model Sharing the sameviewpoint, Lennon (1991, as cited in Renko, 2012) posted that an error is alinguistic form which in the same context will not be produced by a native speaker

In those definitions, the native speakers are highly appreciated and are considered

as norms through which the well-formedness of a learner's utterance or sentence isjudged However, problems may arise if errors are defined in such a way due to thefact that not all English learners are taught by native speakers As a result, nomatter how proficient the teachers are, there may be a difference between theteachers and natives in the way errors are realized Moreover, a language use might

be considered appropriate to one teacher yet inappropriate to the other since theirattitudes of towards errors are possibly different

Taking the role of teachers in defining errors in language learning intoconsideration, Hendrickson (1980, as cited in Al-Mekhlafi & Ramani, 2011)claimed that an error is “an utterance, or structure that a particular languageteacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence inreal-life discourse.” Likewise, Mosbah (2007, as cited in Coskun, 2010) believedthat an error is a form unwanted by the teacher in the given teaching or learningcontext Accordingly, whether a certain language use is correct is not easy to figureout as errors are not simply a language feature but also a classroom-relatedphenomenon Hence, the definition given by Chaudron is widely acceptable due toits ability to bridge the divergent views as errors are considered linguistic forms orcontent that differ from native speaker norms or fact, and any other behaviorsignaled by the teacher as needing improvement (Chaudron, 1986, as cited inDlangamandla, 1996)

2.2.2 2.2.2 Errors Errors Errors,,,, Mistakes Mistakes Mistakes and and and Attempts Attempts

The undesirable language use of a student is not always considered an error,yet it is further classified into at least two categories, namelyerrors and mistakes.

According to Ellis (1997), a mistake is a random slip of the tongue, usuallycaused by fatigue, stress, hurry, etc.; it signals only inappropriate performance andcan be easily corrected by the learner An error, meanwhile, is a systematicdeviation in language production; it signals inadequate language competence andcannot be self-corrected as the learner has not mastered the language rules.Similarly, Larsen-Freeman (1991, as cited in Trawinski, 2005) explained thaterrors reflect gaps in a learner's knowledge, they occur because the leaner does notknow what is correct while mistakes reflect occasional lapses in performance inparticular instance as the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows JulianEdge (1989, as cited in Harmer, 2001), though shared the same viewpoint, furthermade a distinction between these two terms and a third one called attempts An

attempt occurs when a learner tries to say something but does not yet know thecorrect way of saying it What teachers concern most, according to Julian Edge, isthe category of errors because mistakes can be corrected by students themselvesonce the mistakes have been pointed out; meanwhile, attempts tell teachers a lotabout the student's current knowledge and may provide chances for opportunisticteaching

In short, among undesirable utterances produced by learners, it is errors thatteachers should pay much attention to as mistakes are of no significance to theprocess of language learning (Corder, 1967) and attempts do help to enhancestudents' future learning Thus, there is a need to make a clear distinction betweenerrors, mistakes and attempts as a result of the fact that an error, especially aserious one, when misguidedly recognized as a mistake may cause problem to thelearning process However, as Corder (1967) stated, the problem of determiningwhat is a learner's mistake and what is a learner's error is one of some difficulty It

is not easy to decide whether an inappropriate word or phrase produced is a result

of a student's lack of knowledge or of his or her tiredness Therefore, the task ofdifferentiating those categories, though difficult, lies in the hands of each teacher

and their ability to use the appropriate treatment to eliminate the risky ones.

2.2 2.2 3 3 Views Views on on on errors errors

Joseph Conrad, a famous Polish writer once said "It's only those who donothing that make no mistakes" (Conrad, 2009) An error, therefore, is natural andinevitable in all human activities including the learning process Nevertheless, thisphenomenon has received different, even opposing perspectives from linguists andresearchers

From behaviorism viewpoint, language errors are considered to be the maindanger in the process of the second language learning as they could lead to thedevelopment of bad language habits (Trawinski, 2005) Thus, as deeply affected bythis school of thought, Audio-lingual method puts much emphasis on theprevention of this undesirable language use As a result, inconsiderate drillingtechniques and a fully controlled process of learning are used to prevent learnersfrom making an error Once an error occurs, it should be corrected immediately.From an opposing point of view, mentalists consider language learning asprocess of hypotheses-testing leading to rule formation In this sense, errors are notharmful but extremely useful and necessary in forming and testing learners'hypotheses about the language (Trawinski, 2005) Inspired by this positivethinking, communicative language teaching asserts that errors are the evidence ofstudents' experimenting with the language and that progress is being made Thus,error correction by the teacher is avoided, as long as students can express meaningwith fluency

From a personal view, Corder (1967) posited that a learner's errors provideevidence of the system of the language that he or she is using at a particular point

in the course, and therefore, they are significant in three ways Firstly, a learner'serrors tell the teacher how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and,consequently, what remains for him to learn Secondly, errors provide theresearcher with evidence of how language is learned and acquired, what strategies

or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language Lastly butmost importantly, errors are indispensable to the learner himself as making errors

is a device the learner uses in order to test the hypotheses about the nature of the

language and then learn it.

With the emergence of communicative approaches, errors are now no longerseen as a taboo or a sin to be avoided at all cost but are considered as learners'positive contribution to language learning Acknowledging errors' necessity andbenefit, what concerns teachers most is how to make errors work for them In otherwords, instead of treating students negatively once an error is made, teachersshould use those as opportunistic teaching tools to help students make steadyprogress in their learning

2.2.4 2.2.4 Sources Sources Sources of of of errors errors

In order to develop appropriate methods for treating learners' errors, one of thequestions whose answer may provide practitioners with valuable information iswhy errors are made Brown (1980) described four sources of errors that need to

be carefully considered

The first and significant source of errors is interlingual transfer Before

learners expose to the second language, the native one is the only linguistic systemthat they are familiar with Therefore, the beginning stages of a learner's acquiring

a second language are specially vulnerable to the interlingual transfer, in otherwords, the interference or influence of the native language on the new one Thus,

as Brown stated, fluent knowledge or even familiarity with a learner's nativelanguage can aid the teacher in detecting and analyzing such errors

Once learners begin to acquire part of the new language system, it is notinterlingual transfer, but intralingual transfer that is the main source of learners'

errors Intralingual transfer or developmental errors, as coined by Harmer (2001),refers to the language items produced by the learner which reflect not the structure

of the native language but generalizations within the target language

In addition to interlingual and intralingual transfer, context of learning is

another source of errors that relates directly to teachers and teaching materials.Teachers' misleading explanation and information and faulty presentation of astructure or a word in a textbook may become a source of learners' systematicerrors In addition, the textbook-based learning may create a learner with bookishinstead of authentic language

The last source called communication strategies is defined as learner

techniques of compensating for limitations in their second language linguisticresources, such as repairing misunderstanding or sustaining interpersonalinteraction (Saville-Troike, 2006) In order to get their messages across, studentshave to manage within their limited knowledge, which frequently leads to theirgeneralizations within the second language or mix the features of the twolanguages At some times, these techniques may work well but at other times, theycan themselves become a source of errors

Source Source of of of errors errors Description

Interlingual transfer Influence of the native language on the new

one Intralingual transfer Generalizations within the target language Context of learning -Teachers' misleading information and faulty

presentation

- Textbook-based learning Communication strategies Techniques of compensating for limitations in

linguistic resources of the new languageTable 2.1 Summary of sources of errors

According to Brown (1980), understanding sources of errors can help teacherstake another step towards understanding how the learner's cognitive and affectiveprocess related to the linguistic system and to formulate an integratedunderstanding of the process of second language acquisition This is an importantstep in effectively treating learners' errors since it help teachers recognize whatunderlies those incorrect language forms and therefore, offer a suitable treatmentmethod

2.2.5 2.2.5 Types Types Types of of of errors errors

To deal with errors effectively, beside determining their sources, there is a need

to classify those into categories which in turn will determine the sequence andemphasis of instruction (Burt, 1975) Nevertheless, there is not an uniformclassification of errors as a result of different perspectives on the issue

Corder (1974, as cited in Trawinski, 2005), distinguished three types of errorsaccording to their relation to the stage of the learner' linguistic development

Accordingly, pre-systematic errors occur when the learner does not know a

particular rule,systematic errors signal that the learner has discovered a rule which

is incorrect and post-systematic errors indicate that the learner knows the correct

rule but does not always follow it

Focusing on the sources of errors, Larsen-Freeman (1991, as cited inTrawinski, 2005) made a distinction between interlingual errors and intralingual errors Those errors fall into four categories, namely overgeneralization (i.e the

extension of a rule to items not covered by this rule), simplification (i.e the

omission of some elements without making a significant change in information),

communication-based errors (i.e erroneous language caused by the use of

communicative strategies) and pedagogically induced errors (i.e the result of

faulty classroom procedures)

Regarding the way surface structure altered, Ellis (1997) classified errors intothree types including omission (i.e skipping an item that is required of an

utterance to be considered grammatical), misinformation (i.e using one

grammatical form in place of another), misordering (i.e putting the words in an

utterance in the wrong order) Ellis believed that classifying errors in this way canhelp teachers diagnose learners' learning problems at any stage of theirdevelopment and to plot how changes in error patterns occur over time Alsoaccording to him, errors may also be viewed as eitherglobal or local (Ellis, 1997).

Global errors violate the overall structure of a sentence and for this reason maymake it difficult to process In the meantime local errors affect only a singleelement in the sentence and less likely to create any processing problems

Trawinski (2005) put errors resulting from gaps in language competence intotwo categories called overt errors and covert errors Overt errors are a linguistic

error, usually on the level of grammatical subsystem Covert errors present when

an utterance is linguistically correct, however, inappropriate for a given context.Approaching things from a more specific view, researchers on error correctioncommonly classify errors into three main types namely grammatical, lexical andphonological errors (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Shahin, 2011; Mohseni & Edalat,2012) Other researchers further added some more types including

morpho-syntactic errors (Touchie, 1986; Kubota, 1991), listening comprehensionerrors (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005), pragmatic errors (Arias, 2004; Lasagabaster

& Sierra, 2005; Katayama, 2007), discourse organization errors (Azar & Molavi,2012), semantic errors (Arias, 2004) and spelling and punctuation errors (Oladejo,1993)

Author Criteria Criteria for for for categorizing categorizing Types Types of of of errors errors

Corder (1974) Stage of the learner' linguistic

development

- pre-systematic errors

- systematic errors

- post-systematic errors Larsen-Freeman (1991) - interlingual errors

- covert errors

grammatical errors -morpho-syntactic, listening comprehension errors

-pragmatic, discourse errors

- spelling and punctuation errors

Table 2.2 Summary of types of errors

At the first sight, the typologies of language errors proposed by differentauthors appear to be unrelated to each other However, when closely examining,these pieces altogether create a general but detailed picture of the nature oflanguage as well as errors and are promisingly useful for investigations in the field,especially for those involved in error correction

2.3.

2.3 Error Error Error correction correction

2.3.1 2.3.1 Definition Definition Definition of of of error error error correction correction correction in in in EFL EFL EFL teaching teaching teaching contexts contexts

Error correction constitutes one type of negative feedback - the informationprovided by teachers signaling that the learner's utterance lacks veracity or islinguistically deviant (Ellis, 2009) Carl James (1998, as cited in Tomkova, 2013)suggested three meanings for the term correction including (1) informing thelearners that there is an error and leaving them to discover it and repair itthemselves, (2) providing treatment or information that leads to the revision and

correction of the specific error and (3) providing the learners with information thatallows them to revise or reject the wrong rule they were operating with when theyproduced the error More particularly, Chaudron (1977, as cited in Coskun, 2010)posited that error correction involves the teacher reaction that transforms,disapproves or demands improvement of the learner utterance.

Besides error correction, corrective feedback is another term that is often usedinterchangeably referring to what a teacher does in response to what perceived as

an error Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006, as cited in Ellis, 2009) defined correctivefeedback as a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic errorconsisting of (1) an indication that an error has been committed, (2) provision ofthe correct target language form and (3) metalinguistic information about thenature of the error, or any combination of these Despite the difference in wording,the two concepts in fact refer to the same actions started by the teachers inresponding to either the content or the form of a student's utterance, which isconsidered to be undesirable The ultimate of both error correction and correctivefeedback, after all, is to allow students to evaluate, reflect and change theirperformance that is conducive to their gradually mastering the second or foreignlanguage

2.3.2 2.3.2 Views Views Views on on on error error error correction correction

Despite the fact that errors are indispensable to learners in language learning,whether they should be corrected or not sparks controversy among linguists andresearchers

2.3.2.1.

2.3.2.1 For For For error error error correction correction

Trawinski (2005) viewed errors as tools with which the learners discoversecond language rules and it is the correction that provides learners with thefeedback allowing him or her to memorize the appropriate version of the rule.Having the same point of view, Brown (1980) asserted that learners' process ofacquisition will be impeded if they do not commit errors and then benefit fromvarious form of feedback on those errors By making errors, students have achance to reflect their own learning and thanks to the feedback received from theteacher and peers, they get things right from wrong and improve their learning

Along the same lines, error correction is claimed to be indeed necessary for mostlearners to come to the correct mental representation of the linguisticgeneralization and ultimately reach native-like levels of proficiency (Gass andSelinker, 2001).

Allwright and Bailey (1991, as cited in Dlangamandla, 1996) furtherhighlighted the need to do error correction by pointing out what students have toconfront in consequence of non-correction According to them, without correction,the students who once made errors may keep producing inaccurate forms over along time being convinced that the rules they are operating with are accurate Tomake the matter worse, such erroneous output once goes uncorrected may createthe impression that it is correct and then serve as input to the listeners or readers

As a result, the information receivers, in turn, may alter their existing hypotheses

to conform with their classmates' uncorrected output (Allwright and Bailey, 1991,

as cited in Dlangamandla, 1996; Schachter, 1988, as cited in Pawlak, 2014) Thisseemingly endless circle will definitely result in utterly harmful effects to thedevelopment of students' second or foreign language

Errors, therefore, must not be routinely left uncorrected It is one of the highlyrequired practices of language teachers to provide students with the feedback theyneed to confirm, modify or reject their hypotheses so as to help them update ontheir learning and come closer to the target language

2.3.2.2.

2.3.2.2 Against Against Against error error error correction correction

Strongly opposing this teaching practice, Krashen (1981a, 1981b, as cited inRezaei, 2011) maintained that corrective feedback should be abandoned because itcan have potential negative effects on learners and hence impeding the flow ofcommunication In line with him, Van Patten (1992, as cited in Ellis, 2009) statedthat correcting errors in learner output has a negligible effect on the developingsystem of most language learners Considering error correction as a bad idea,Truscott (1999) posited that in order for a given instance of correction to beeffective, both teachers and students must overcome a great many problems, any ofwhich is sufficient enough to make the correction a failure Therefore, Truscottbelieved, little reason for optimism about the future prospects of correction

Strongly disagreeing with Truscott, Lyster, LightBrown and Spada (2000) provedthat Truscott's viewpoint on error correction is not sufficiently supported by relatedresearch, as a result, his conclusion on the correction of errors cast doubt amongreaders In addition, the three authors clearly insisted on the usefulness of errorcorrection and the need for more investigations on the effectiveness of each type ofcorrective feedback rather than abandon it because of its difficulty.

Although not all linguists and researchers share the same opinion, the majority

of them believe that there is a need for errors to be corrected Students coming tothe classroom with a lot of different hypotheses about the target language,consequently, inaccurate or undesirable spoken and written output are likely toappear in large quantities Then, it is the error correction, most of the time done byteachers, that helps to testify those and give students knowledge and confidence tomove along the continuum and get to the desired destination As Ellis (2009c, ascited in Pawlak, 2014) and Lyster, LightBrown and Spada (2000) insisted, currentresearch has switched from addressing whether corrective feedback works toexamining what kind works best as there is increasing evidence that correctivefeedback can assist language learning

2.4.

2.4 Oral Oral Oral error error error correction correction

Together with the correction of written errors, oral error correction has beenreceiving more and more attention from researchers as communicative approachescome into fashion The goal of language learning nowadays has shifted frommemorizing the linguistic features of the new language to developing the learners'ability to receive and convey meaningful messages in the target language Thecorrection of oral errors, therefore, has aroused growing interest among researchers

in the field

2.4.1 2.4.1 Views Views Views on on on oral oral oral error error error correction correction

The general views on the correction of oral errors are highly influenced bycommunicative approaches Language teachers are now required to be lessdominant in the classroom so that students can have more opportunities forcommunication As a result, error correction, one of the most common practicesdone by teachers, is considered as hindrance to language learning and thereby

should be omitted (Rahimi & Naderi, 2014) Similarly, Valero, Fernandez, Iseniand Clarkson (2008) insisted on the fact that errors in spoken language may beallowed without being corrected since the message can be understood As thecommunicative interaction is the top priority, the correction of oral errors areregarded not supportive even obtrusive to learning since it can hinder students'flow of communication According to Kaeoluan (2009), while students arefocusing on meaningful communication, it is not the right time to interrupt but itwould be more productive to do error correction while they are having accuracydrills Kaeoluan is not the first researcher to conclude on such an issue, yet manyscholars like Cathcart and Olsen (1976, as cited in Walz, 1982) and Chastain (1971,

as cited in Walz, 1982) had before postulated the same viewpoint Error correction

is highly required in drills which stress linguistic patterns and accuracy, yet duringcommunicative interactions where students are expected to experiment with thelanguage as well as create and foster their speaking skills, the correction of errorsthen seems to be unnecessary, even harmful

If such undesirable practice has to be done, oral corrective feedback has to bekept to a minimum and priority should be given to errors that hampercommunication (Almagid, 2006) Selectivity in the correction of oral errors, asWalz (1982) stated, is necessary for maintaining the pace of the class and foravoiding the possibility of embarrassing students with excessive interruptions.Once oral correction is done excessively, it can have negative effect on motivationand prevent learning steps to take place as students do not dare to take risks and donot say anything unless they are sure of its correctness (Walz, 1982) Selectivity incorrection, hence, implies a choice for the order of the errors to be corrected in oralactivities keeping the communicative purpose in mind

Last but not least, the relationship between accuracy and fluency in doing oralcorrection is another issue surrounded by opinions Communicative activities, atype of meaning-focused instruction, though effective in developing fluent oralcommunication skills, does not result in a high level of linguistic or sociolinguisticcompetence (Ellis et al., 2003, as cited in Almagid, 2006) Too much emphasisplaced on developing students' fluency may lead to the phenomenon Huang (2009)

referred to as “Fluent fool”, i.e a person who appears to communicate fluently inthe target language but knows very little about its rules Oral errors resulted fromstudents' attempt to communicate in the target language is natural andunderstandable, however, serious problems may arise if huge quantities of errorsappear in every utterance produced by a student Firstly, the message conveyedthen can be unclear or misunderstood by the listeners, as a result, thecommunicative purpose can not be achieved Secondly, even worse, this can result

in a situation where learners provide each other with input which is often incorrectand which other learners process as if it were right (Martinez, 2006) Theutterances produced by students then are nothing more than a whole bunch oferrors which may lead to unsuccessful interactions Recognizing those potentialrisks, an integrated approach to language instruction incorporating attention toaccuracy within a meaning-focused activity is highly required and one method forachieving such an approach is through providing error correction (Long, 1991, ascited in Namaghi, 2010; Neff, 2012) Nevertheless, again, too much correction onaccuracy may inhibit students from speaking and bring the communicativeactivities back to linguistic drills Hence, though difficult, the right balancebetween fluency and accuracy is again sought

All in all, though surrounded by different viewpoints, oral error correction isbelieved to be helpful in achieving successful communicative competence insecond or foreign language learning (Edge, 1989, as cited in Almagid, 2006; Ellis,2009) Accordingly, language teachers should not be afraid to correct students' oralerrors as this is actually what students often expect from them What concernsteachers, then, is how to properly and effectively deal with oral errors produced bystudents when confronted by seemingly numerous issues

2.4.2 2.4.2 Dealing Dealing Dealing with with with oral oral oral errors errors

According to Hendrickson (1978, as cited in Oladejo, 1993), there are someissues that language teachers should bear in mind when performing correctionsincluding 'what types of errors should be corrected', 'when errors should becorrected', 'how errors should be corrected', and 'who should do the correction'

2.4.2.1 2.4.2.1 What What What types types types of of of oral oral oral errors errors errors should should should be be be corrected? corrected?

Although viewpoints on the types of oral errors to be corrected differconsiderably among linguists and researchers, they generally express no opposition

to a single idea that oral error correction should be done selectively (Burt, 1975;Krashen, 1981; Harmer, 2001) They as a whole tend to advise teachers to focusattention on a few error types rather than try to address all the errors learners madesince this is impractical, even unwise Correcting all errors, according to Burt andKiparsky (1974, as cited in Walz, 1982), may lead to spending a lot of time onsuperficial errors rather than more serious ones Moreover, too much errorcorrection may destroy students' confidence in speaking and drag an activity back

to the study of linguistic forms (Harmer, 2001) Accordingly, in doing oralcorrective feedback, teachers should minimize the errors to correct so as topreserve the communicative purpose of the activity

Another idea that widely reaches agreement among researchers is that thecorrection of global errors must be the first and top priority (Burt, 1975;

Hendrickson, 1978, as cited in Rezaei, 2011; Murphy, 1986, as cited inDlangamandla, 1996) An error that impedes the understanding of a message ismore serious than those that do not have such an effect Burt (1975) asserted thatlocal errors need not to be corrected since the message conveyed is clear andcorrection might interrupt a learner in the flow of productive communication.Rather, it is global errors that need to be treated in some way since those errorsmay make the message conveyed remain garbled As a result, an utterancebecomes much more comprehensible when teachers correct one global error ratherthan several local ones (Burt and Kiparsky, 1974, as cited in Walz, 1982)

In addition to global errors, highly repeated errors also attract attention from

researchers and linguists (Walz, 1982; Chaudron, 1988, as cited in Dlangamandla,1996) According to these authors, what teachers should concern is errors made bymore than one student rather than by a single one only If teachers succeed ineradicating a frequent error, quick teaching and re-teaching sequences can beachieved, thereby a greater percentage of accurate language use will result as alarge number of students are involved In addition to highly repeated errors,errors

relevant to the focus of a lesson should be given priority before attention is given

to less important ones (Cohen, 1975, as cited in Dlangamandla, 1996) Thepedagogical focus of a lesson is considered the most significant language featurethat should be kept in a student's mind Once such an error occurs during oralactivities and goes uncorrected, especially after some drills have devotedthemselves to this feature, the students hearing it may begin to question their ownunderstanding of the recently-learned feature and wonder what is the correct form

to memorize

Besides the three types mentioned above, some other error types are alsosuggested, yet high attention was not drawn to them as it was with the first three

Stigmatizing errors, or interlingual and intralingual errors are some among those

suggestive ones Stigmatizing or irritating errors, the errors that cause a negativeevaluation from native speakers are highly recommended by Cohen (1975, as cited

in Walz, 1982) and Hendrickson (1979, as cited in Walz, 1982) Nevertheless, thiskind of error seems to evoke little interest from other linguists probably because ofits non-classroom-relatedness Sharing the problem with one of the definition oferror, the majority of language teachers are not native speakers, as a result, theymay not judge properly how shocking or irritating an utterance sounds from theviewpoint of a native Hence, though interesting, this type of error has not beenwidely investigated through research Similarly, interlingual and intralingual errors proposed by Daryoosh (as cited in Namaghi, 2010) seem still receive little

attention from specialists in the field Recognizing the significance of the sources

of errors, especially interlingual and intralingual ones, he insisted on the need tocorrect interlingual errors since students are often in confusion about thesimilarities and differences between the two language systems Intralingual one, onthe other hand, does not require any correction since through further exposure tothe target language the students will realize the correct structure and self-correcthis or her speech Though sensible this argument is, it is not always an easy task todifferentiate the sources of errors, especially in classes where students come fromdifferent countries Thus, although sources of errors are important in providingvaluable information about the process of second or foreign language learning and

deciding on the suitable treatment method, still more investigations into itseffectiveness and how it should be done in reality are needed.

All in all, despite different beliefs about what oral errors to be corrected, not asingle one agree on the idea of correcting all errors since it is an extremelyoverloaded work and considered to be ineffective at all Rather, it is advisable thatpriority should be given to some most important errors, namely errors that impedecommunication, those that students frequently make and those of the features thatthe class has recently learned Once such errors can be properly treated, it is highlybelieved that students will communicate successfully and their proficiency in thesecond or foreign language will be progressed

2.4.2.2

2.4.2.2 When When When should should should oral oral oral errors errors errors be be be corrected? corrected?

In written corrective feedback, the correction is always delayed to allowteachers more time to carefully examine the written work and give out sufficientfeedback In the case of oral corrective feedback, however, teachers are faced with

a choice of either correcting immediately or delaying the correction until later.Regarding communicative activities, the usual advice is to delay error correction

so as to avoid interrupting the student's flow of communication Harmer (1982, ascited in Harmer, 2001) asserted that when students are taking part in accuracywork, teachers should intervene the activity at any stage to make the correctionwhereas in fluency activities, the correction may well do after the event, not during

it Having the same viewpoint, Tony Lynch (as cited in Harmer, 2001) believedthat the best answer to such question is as late as possible Part of the values ofcommunicative activities lies in the students' attempts to get their meanings across,hence, teacher intervention can take away the students' needs to negotiate meaning,break the flow of communication, raise stress levels and stop the acquisitionprocess in its track Accordingly, students should be allowed to finish theiractivities before oral correction to be made so as to preserve the ultimate purpose

of communicative activities

In contrast to the common belief, Lightbown (1992, as cited in Almagid, 2006)strongly favored immediate correction since it can create longer and lastingawareness of errors and correct use of the forms Delayed correction may be ideal

for creating conditions for speaking skills' development, however, it is not alwayseasy, yet sometimes even challenging, for both teachers and students to recall what

a student himself or his classmates have said This as a result leads to the lesseffectiveness of error correction, especially on the part of the students when theyare unable to recollect even their own errors and hence get less benefit from them.Still, things are quite different with immediate correction when students arecorrected on the spot which ensures higher percentage of intake from students.Despite little research on the effectiveness of the two timings has been done,the idea of delayed correction has been widely accepted However, according toHarmer (2001), there are times during communicative activities when a teacherwants to intervene to offer correction or alternatives to keep the activities on track.Therefore, as Ellis (2009) suggested, teachers need to experiment with the timings

to find out what kind suits their class best and in what situations these two can becombined to bring greater positive effects

2.4.2.3

2.4.2.3 How How How should should should oral oral oral errors errors errors be be be corrected? corrected?

2.4.2.3.1 2.4.2.3.1 Lyster Lyster Lyster and and and Ranta's Ranta's Ranta's model model

Linguists and researchers have proposed different techniques for correctingoral errors, yet the model by Lyster and Ranta (1997) seems to attract the highestattention and has been widely applied in the field According to these tworesearchers, the correction used by language teachers in dealing with students' oralerrors can be divided into six different types, namely explicit correction, recasts,clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition

Explicit correction refers to the teacher's explicit provision of the correct form

without forgetting to clearly indicate that what the student has just said is incorrect.'You should say ' or 'No, it should be ', for example, are some statements oftenemployed in this type of feedback This technique is appreciated by its ability toattract the students' attention to the error and the correction which leads to effectivechanges on the part of the students (Martinez, 2006; Ellis, 2009) However, itsfailure to activate the mental process of students in struggling to find out thecorrect version themselves is criticized as it may not enhance better memorization

of the correct forms on the students' side (Fanselow, 1978; Kaeoluan, 2009)

Besides directly giving the desirable form, teachers can correct the erroneousutterance implicitly by using recasts, i.e teacher' reformulation of all or part of a

student's utterance minus the error Repetition with change is an attempt made byteachers to show the students the contrast between their inaccurate utterance withthe accurate one, as a result, students are expected to be able to reconstruct theirown Nevertheless, this type of correction sometimes appears too implicit forstudents to notice as it is easily mistaken as a continuation of the conversation(Martinez, 2006)

Neither too explicitly nor too implicitly, clarification requests is the type in

which teachers indicate to students either that their utterance has beenmisunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way andthat a repetition or a reformulation is required The third type of correction isregarded as more student-oriented than the first two since teachers do not directly

or indirectly provide the correct response Rather, by asking a question like 'Pardonme?', 'Again, please' or 'What do you mean by saying that?', teachers signalstudents that an error has been made and he or she needs to reconstruct theirutterance Despite this good aspect, Fanselow (1978) complained that suchtechnique can confuse students as they do not know whether there is some problemwith their construction or the teachers did not hear what they say Accordingly,they do not know how to act properly Even worse, if they actually realize thatthere is some problem with their utterance, they may not know how to fix it sincethe teachers do not clearly figure out the error for them

As an alternative or a follow-up to clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information or yes/no questions related to the

well-formedness of the student's utterance, without explicitly providing the correctform When using this type of feedback, teachers clearly indicate that an error hasbeen made and point to the nature of the error, yet do not explicitly tell the correctresponse The students are expected to be the ones who finally produce the desirelanguage construction after teachers' attempts to elicit it by saying 'Can you findyour error?, 'No, not that.', or 'It is feminine?' This type of correction is consideredhelpful in supporting students to find out the correct response themselves

Similar to metalinguistic feedback, elicitation refers to the techniques used by

teachers to directly elicit the correct form from the student Firstly, questionsexcept yes/no ones can be used, for example, teachers can ask 'How do we say X

in English? to help a student come up with the desired form Secondly, teachersmay repeat the students' erroneous utterance but pause at the word preceding theerror so as to give the students a chance to fill in the blank with the correct form

In comparison with other implicit correction techniques, elicitation is regarded as astronger and straighter way to elicit the correct response from students, especiallywhen it is preceded by metalinguistic feedback

Repetition, the last type suggested by Lyster and Ranta, is the feedback in

which teachers repeat, in isolation, the student's erroneous utterance, usually byadjusting their intonation so as to highlight the error This is done with the hopethat students will notice the change in their teachers' intonation and realize thelocation of the error, hence, be able to correct it Nonetheless, the ambiguitycaused by teachers' repetition, to some extent, makes it less effective (Walz, 1982;Martinez, 2006; Ellis, 2009) Students may mistake teachers' repetition of theerroneous utterance as a way to continue the conversation, reinforce the correctresponse or make the correct utterance louder for everybody to hear rather than as

a way to ask for reformulation from the students

In addition to six types mentioned above, a seventh type called multiple feedback which refers to combination of more than one type of feedback in one

teacher turn was also included A single technique, however good it is, does notensure its effectiveness in all teaching and learning contexts As a result, it ishighly probable that teachers may combine two or more types in correctingstudents' oral errors, which probably leads to higher effectiveness in their specificsituations

2.4.2.3.2 2.4.2.3.2 Some Some Some other other other techniques techniques

Besides the model proposed by Lyster and Ranta, other linguists andresearchers also provide some suggestive techniques that may be useful to oralcorrection including waiting time, gestures, recording, and follow-up activities

Waiting time is so important a technique that Allwright (1975, as cited in

Dlangamandla, 1996) believed that failure on the part of the teacher to givewaiting time so that the error maker can restructure their statements is errorcreating behavior Sharing the idea of not interrupting students too quickly, Rowe(1974, as cited in Walz, 1982) found out that if teachers wait three to five secondsafter asking a question instead of intervening immediately, students' responsesincrease dramatically Likewise, Holley and King (1971, as cited in Walz, 1982)realized that students are able to correct their own errors up to fifty percent if theirteachers wait five to ten seconds Instead of asking students to respondimmediately, giving them waiting time appears to be of use due to the fact thatstudents have more time to pull themselves together and rearrange their ideas for abetter language form Teachers, hence, can reduce their talking time as well asenhance the students' learning autonomy

Besides giving students more time to think, using gestures to let them know

what they are required to do can be taken into account as well Harmer (2001) andSari (2009) believed that once a teacher knows their class quite well, a simple faceexpression or a hand movement may be enough to indicate to students what iswrong with their utterance or what they are expected to do The necessity andusefulness of gestures is best observed when they are incorporated into correctiontechniques which may confuse students The purpose of teachers' repetition of astudent's erroneous statement, accordingly, will be more direct if a questioninglook was a companion However, the meaning of each gesture might need to benegotiated with the students to prevent misunderstanding from taking place.Moreover, as Harmer (2001) stated, the use of gestures should be done with caresince wrong gestures or overuse of them may cause negative effects on students

Recording activities are another useful type, especially if oral correction is

done at the end of the activity Though delayed correction facilitates students' flow

of speech, it is easy for both teachers and students to forget the errors made Hence,recording activities in which teachers write down points they want to refer to ortape students' language performance for later review is perhaps necessary Teachersthen can discuss these errors with students or get them work in groups or

individually to identify and correct the errors made by themselves and by theirclassmates (Harmer, 2001) Tape-record students' oral production and get them toidentify their errors, as Richards and Renandya (2002) posited, is an importantkind of activity which can make students' errors work for them In this way, errorsare no longer seen as sins to be avoided but opportunistic teaching and learningtools through which students really get benefit from.

The last suggestive technique, follow-up activities, seems less related to the

correction but rather a kind of reinforcement activity Strongly opposing the idea ofmodeling the correct response due to its inability to afford learners an opportunity

to learn, Fanselow (1978) preferred follow-up activities which can move thecorrect patterns and rules into students' long-term memory He believed that thecorrection during communicative activities can treat mistakes only, and it isthrough follow-up activities that students can change their incorrect hypothesesabout the target language Given that the errors made are too serious or too often,Fanselow has a point in providing linguistic drills which foster students' accuracy.However, quick correction should be done first so as to maintain thecommunication Besides, the number of linguistic drills should be limited or elsethe communicative activities then may be shifted from an opportunity for students

to talk to a review aiming for later exercises only

Author Correction Correction techniques techniques

Lyster and Ranta (1997) Explicit correction, recasts, clarification

requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition

-Gestures

- Recording

- Follow-up activitiesTable 2.3 Summary of correction techniques

In general, there are various types and techniques to correct oral errors atteachers' disposal What remains for them, then, is to consider what techniquesbest suit their students and their teaching situation