Luận văn 10th grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities at do son boarding high school hai phong

oral error cơrrootion Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction ‘Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected Table 6: S

VIEINAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, [IANGI UNTVERSITY OF LANGUAGES ANT INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐÖ THỊ HỎNG HÀ

ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES

AT DO SON BOARDING ITIGII SCIIOOL, IIAI PIIONG

TILAI DO CUA LGC SINII LOP 16 TRUONG TUPT

NỘI TRÚ ĐỎ SƠN, HÃI PHÒNG ĐỎI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI

CUA GIAO VIEN TRONG CAC IIOAT DONG NOI

M.A MINOR THESIS

Kield : English Tcaching Mcthodology Code : 601410

HANOL - 2011

DO TIN TIONG TA

10" GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’ ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES

AT DO SON BOARDING ITIGII SCIIOOL, ILAI PIIONG

THAI DO CUA HQC SINH LOP 10 TRUONG THPT NOLTRU DO SON, HAL PHONG DOL YGL VLEC CHU'A LOL

CUA GIAO VIEN TRONG CAC HOAT DONG NOL

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology

Cude : 601410

Supervisor : Khoa Anh Việt, MLA

TIANOI -2011

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the Študy, ăceieireerre

2 Aims of the Study

wee

3 Seups of the Study

4, Rescarch QueSfiOHlS con

5 Methods of the Study

6 Significance of the Study

7, Design of the Study ssenminnneetenienen sienna

4.2 Perspectives on Etror Comection sccscenssnisenetinisnenennntninientaenened)

5 The Role of Oral Error Correotion

IL1 Methodology

1I.1.3 Research Quesfions co oeeeeriee „10

TL1.5 Data Colleeion Proeedute „u21

11.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral crrors and oral error corteelion -.21 11.2.2 Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oval etror coIreetio 23 11.2.3 Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral arrofs: 225 11.2.3.1 Preferred types of errors to be corrected - - cod 11.3.3.2 Preferrcd timing oÊ cror correetion ăn neneeiriirareroeoou.27 11.2.3.3, Preferred techniques of error correcien 127

3 Recormmndstiens for Teachers’ Error Correction in Oral Classroom Activilies 33

2.2 Working out Appropriate Error Correction Strategies eo

3.3 Creating a Supportive and Pleasant Classroom Environment 36

3 Linitations of the Sbudy cceeeeerree 136

APPENDIX 3: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION NOTES aX

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

BSL English as a Second Language

L2: Second Language

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TESOL: Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages

‘Table 2: Students’ perceptions on the role of teachers” oral error correction

Table

Students’ fovel of undorslanding of loachers? oral error cơrrootion Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction

‘Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected

Table 6: Students* prefer s for amount of citor Lo be correeted

Table 7: Students’ preferences for timing of error correction

‘Table 8: Students’ preferences for error comection techniques

‘Table 9: Students’ most favored and least favored correction techniques

Table 10: Students’ prefcrenees for crror eorrcetion forms

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the Study

“The teaching and learning of English language is always on its progress to search for effective methodologies One of the issuss which has constantly alfracled great concern and discussion among many linguists, educational researchers and teachers is the correction of learners’ errors

tial

I has boon widoly accepted thal error making is inovilable and il appoars

to the language leaming process, The comection of Jeamers’ exers has also been recognized as an integral part of fanguage teaching So far, a number of studies have been conducted (o sock for effective methods af coreeting leamers’ errors with the aim of fostering more successful language learning The research findings have revealed that leamers’ perceptions and attitudes towards instructional methods have a great influence on their achievement (Schulz’s, 1996, 2001) Teachers need to know leamers’ beliefs about Janguags tcaching and Icarning becausc a mismatch between students’ expectations and the realities they encounter in the classroam can prevent improvement in language acquisition

(Tlonwity, 1988)

In reality, such mismatch has been found in many settings including Vietnam, and

as a result, it has bronght about unsatisfactory learning outcomes ‘This problem is not an excepliorin the coment of Do Son Boating Tigh School where T have been working as # icachcr of English From my professional experince and personal obscrvation, T have realized that the teachers seem not to have paid umach attention to what their students think and feel about oral error correction, whereas the students come to class with a variety of

‘betiofs, Icarning styles and language proficiency, and they respond in different ways to the teachers’ error treatment, Rather, the teacher-centered instruction tends to be dominant and

‘the instructional techniques seem to follow “one size fits all” mode These fretors have

‘becn proved to affoot students’ progress in language Icaming in gencral and in speaking English in particular,

Rooted ftom the problem existing in my context and the awareness of the significance of oral crror correction as well ax the nocd far teachers lo leami about thair students’ perceptions and preferences for error treatment, I would like to conduct an

investigation into "10" grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in

assist teachers to gam more insights into the issues of oral error corection so that they can adjust or adopt appropriale methods catering for students’ needs with the airn of improving

Janguage learning

2 Aims of the Study

The specific aims of the study arz:

«to find out what students think about the correction of oral errors delivered by their jeachers sI

wh as whether they like their errors to be cor

cled, and how important they

think teachers’ error correction to their learning of English

«fo understand how students respond to the current methods of correcting oral errors employed by their teachers, for example, to what extent they understand their teachers”

correction, and how effective they think their icachers’ instruction is

«to explore in what ways students expect their oral error correction to be delivered (e.g which errors to correct, when to correct, how to correct) with the aim of matching teachers”

instruction and students’ expectations so thai tcachers can make best use of their methods

to enhance language leaming

3 Scope of the Study

It is clear that oral etror correction is a broad issue A study on students’ attitudes towards oral error correction apparently opens for a variety of subject matters which cannot be entirely discussed within the scope of a minor thesis Therefore, in this study, I would like to restrict the focus to investigating the attitudes towards teachers’ methods of

spoken error correction among a group of 10" grade students at Do Son Boarding High

Schoo! in Tai Phong city

2 What are the students” reactions to the current practices of teachers’ oral error

correction?

” correction of oral crrors?

3 What are the shudents’ preferencs for teach

5, Methods of the Study

Tn order 1 seck for answers lo the rescarch questions, various sources of dala were used from a survey questionnaire, classroom observations and interviews

‘The main instrument for collecting data is a survey questionnaire aimed to discover what the students think about the role of errors and crror conection, how they cvaluate the current practices of teachers’ error comection, and how they prefer their errors to be

corrected in classroom oral activities

The study also included classroom observations to investigate how error correction was delivered in the classroom to see if there was anything not revealed or anything that condirms comments made by the students in the questionnaire

Scmi-struchued interviews with a small group of students were atded to the

instraments described above to get deeper insights into students’ attitudes and expectations

for teachers’ error correction methods

6 Significance of the Study

"The issue of teacher's oral error correction has presented certain problems for both FFI, icachers and studenls duc to the mismatch between Icachers® actual practices and

students’ expectations As a result, the teachers’ error treatment in classroom oral activities

has not reached adequate efficiency This study therefore hopes to find out reasonable answers to the research questions so that teachers can gain more awareness of the significance of students’ belicfS and their influcnec on the language teaching and Icamning

By comparing students’ attitudes and preferences with actual classroom practices, teachers are hoped to find oul their own appropriate ways for delivering oral errur correction to

their students

7 Design of the Study

The thesis contains three main parts as follows:

+ Pait A provides an introduction of the study including the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the stndy organization

general and of oral error correction in particular; common techniques of oral exror

correclion; and review of previous sindiss on sludents’ aliitudss and preferences for teachers’ oral eror correction Chapter 2 describes the methodology underlying the research including the background information about the context and subjects of the study,

jailed,

the instruments used to cnllcel the data, the procedure of data collection, and do

description of data analysis and discussion of the study results,

+ Part C presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical suggestions for icachors delivering error corraction in classroom oral activilics, The linnilations of tha study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this part

8 Summary

This chapter presculs an overview of the study with specific reference to the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the study organization, The next chapter will provide the theoretical background for the study,

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is to lay the theoretical background for the thesis by reviewing relevant authoritative studies Initially, the term “error” is defined and categorized

followed by the distinction between the terms “crror” and “mistake” Bi 8, major

perspectives on the place of emors and emor correction in general and of oral etror correction in particufar are discussed The following are description and illustration of some common concetion techniques Finally, the chapter critically reviews previous

studies on students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ oral error correction

learner speech or writing thal deviate from same d nora or mature language performance”, Notish’s (1983:7) also considers error as a deviation arising “when a learner

has not learnt something and consistently “gets it wrong”

in foreign and L2 teaching situations, however, the “deviation” aspsct of the

“crrors” from a given “standard” of the language prescnts some problem, Allwright and

Bailey (1991) explain that the target language model at which the EFL learners are aiming

may not be the wative speaker norm for the teaching is mostly done by non-native speaking teachers, Even L2 leamars living in the target culture do not always adopt the model of the target language The global varieties of the English language also influence the conception

of conrcetnass As discussed by Quirk al al (1985, cited in Mishra 2005:38), the problem

“Joses its gravity against the emergence of international English; in place of a single standard many regional varieties as standards can coexist”, Allwright and Bailey (1991) additionally states that changes in language teaching methodology also have an effect on deciding whal an cror is In the Light of the communicative approach the leareis` communicative success is considered a fit otiterion to decide on errors That is, errors only occur if they block communication, If communication is possible despite a few slips and

teachers, As concluded by Chaudron (1986b:69), “the determination of errors is clearly a difficult process thal depends on the immettiate context of the ullsrance in qusstion as welt

as on an understanding of the content of the lesson, the intent of the teacher or student, and

at times, the prior learning of the students”

However, Dulay et al (1982) observe that most developmental errors are intralingual

errors, For them developmental errars are errans similar to those made by children tearning the target anguage as their first language

Categories of errors can be made in the four skill areas of the language: speaking, writing, reading and listening

Errors are also calegorived an the basis of language components such as phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic, lexical and stylistic exrars,

Under the CLT point of view which considers errors as these which block communication, Etat and Kiparsky (1972) distinguish between “global” and “Local” cxrors Global errors are those that affect overall sentence organization and significantly hinder communication, Local errors are those that affect single elements in a sentence but do not usually hinder communication significantly

The complexitication of eors in the language classroom is necessary for

understanding the diverse universe of error possibilities in any given langnage context in

other words, to compare exrar correction types without consideration of error feature differences may completely distort the realily of haw ctor correction fanetions in

classroom contexts

3 Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake”

There are ways for teachers to distinguish between the terms “error” and “mistake” inspite of the fact that it is quite difficult to signify a clear differentiation

According to Corder (1967, ciled in Richards 1974: 24-25), the lermu “error” refers

to the error of competence wich is due to the learner”s defective knowledge of the target language He uses the term “mistake” to indicate the error of performance which is a result

of “memory lapsas, physical states such as lirsdness and psychological conditions such as

learning proves and they can be sclfcor s kearners with almost absolute

assurance, Whereas, carors arc hardly amended by the leamers themselves und il is

Mistakes should be carefully distinguished from errors of a second language Jeamer Nevertheless, il may nol always be an casy lask indeed, As stated by Brown (2000), an error can be self-corrected if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker It is neutrally observed only when Jeamers have the competence to correct the errors ITowever,

when there is no sclfcomection, mistakes or crrors cannot be identified

4, Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction

avoided On the other hand, making errors is regarded as an integral and essential part of the learning process Along with the stream of these different schools of thonghts, the correction of extors is also viewed differently Some believe that error comection can be affective and beneficial to language leaming ‘The others, however, cast doubts on the role

of cor correction: whother it hetps language Isarners improve their Ieenring tn this section, a presentation of major views on errors and exror correction tiom the perspectives

of pedagogy and L2 acquisition theories will be made

4.1 Perspectives on Errors

in many traditional language olasses errors are regarded negatively and have to be cradicated They are considered ta cause loss of respeet for bath Ieachers and tearners and making loo many crrors is severely disapproved (Nomish, 1983), The erurs arc belicved

to be the thult of the learners and could be prevented, This probably leads to anxiety and hesitancy among learners to say anything for fear of making mistakes and being thought as foolish by othor Icarners or by the teacher

Contrary to the traditional outlook on errors as discussed above, a great deal of recent research in the field of first and second language acquisition regards errors as positive aids to learning In a language classroom, the a1er made by leamners is considered not evidence of failure to eam but an essential and integral part of leaning a language

(Norish, 1983; Davis & Pearse, 2000; Dulay & Burt, 1974, cited in Zhu, 2010) Generally,

errors are belizved fo be unavoidable yel indicator of the progress in language Iearning Making exrors indicates that learners are actively patticipating in the language learning

process (Islam, 2007) An error, according to Yule (1997, cited in Islam, 2007:7), “is not

sumncthing which hinders a loamer’s progress, bul is probably a cluz lo the active leaning Progress behind made by a leamer as he or she tries out ways of communicating in the new Janguags” Also, errors indicate earners” stage which reflects parts of the lessom that have teen understood and to be improved (Hedge, 2000), As stated by Corder (1981 cited in Richards 1974), a learner's a1rors are significant in three diftérent ways Firstly, they show the teacher whether he undertakes a systematic analysis, how Bar the leamer has progressed

and reached the goal and, accordingly, what remains for him to leam Secondly, they provide the researchers with cvidenec of how fanguage

s tearm and sequired, whal strategies or methods the leamer is employing in his discovery of the language Thirdly, they are essential to the leamer himself since exror making is regarded as an instrument the jearner uses fo lea the language and to test his hypalheses about the nialure of the Janguage he is leaning

‘There has been a change in the attitude to errors from stricily negative to more reasonably positive Frrors aro na longer vicwod as Imving damaging offecl on the students’ interest to learn the language but an integral part of their leaming process, This positive and tolerant attitude towards errors has also afifected the perspectives on the

correction of crrors which will be discussed in the following section,

3.2 Perspectives on Error Correction

Air

jowards the corcetion of Ieamers” errors have also been a source of

debate among many forcign and second language scholars, rescarchers and teachers,

The debate of error correction has emerged trom calls for correction of learners" errors at all cost Brooks (1960:56) state that “like sin, error is to be avoided the principal way of overcoming it is to shorton the time lapse between the incorrect response and a presentation once more of the correct model”, Additionally, as stated by Corder (1967, cited in Richards 1974:20), “if we were lo achieve a perfeck leaching method the errors would never be conunitted in the first place, and that therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of our teaching techniques” Therefore, teachers strive to prevent their students from making errors by immediate correction which they believe woudd help students be aware of their crrors and nol repeat them, Some researchers are more concemed with teacher correcting leamers’ errors in order to prevent fossilization in their viewpoints, errors have to be dealt with or otherwise can fossilize and teacher comectionis the way 1o save learners from fossilization (Han, 2004)

The emphasis put on an absolute capability to eradicate errors has encountered a number of opposing ideas The strongest argument was made by Krashen (1982) who claims that crror corrcetion has no usc and may cven have a hamaful effect on language development He explains that anxiety associated with error correction can raise a leamer’s affective filter, which impedes fluency in the L2 In sharing this view, 'errel (1977) points

out that affective rather than cognitive factors are of primary eoncem in the language

i difficnlt constructions for fear of making

and they could resull in learners avoidi

imistakes and trying to focus more on form than on content (Krashen, 1982) The recommendation in this perspective is that all error correction be eliminated because it is unnecessary, inefTeetive and oven counterproductive

Among the debates for and against error correetion in the extreme is a preference for selective correction of exrars In this perspective, etror correction can be effective and qhite beneficial to language learning provided that il is donc in an appropriate manner

‘Nunan (1989) asserts that one of the fimctions of the teachers in the classroom is to correct Jeamers’ errors, However, it is essential to note that correcting all the errors that learners make is impossible When they are overcorrecied they may become discouraged and confused, which would probably put an cnd to communication Ur (1996) also affisms that

a teacher trying to correct all mistakes might also end up with leamers feeling discouraged and depressed and this will take the interest away from learning, Additionally, as a resull

of Hendrickson’s (1978) research, learners do not Like to be corrected for each minor exror they made because this practee destroys their confidence to use the target language The isacher must therefore be sensitive and nol correct the leamer loo much, as this can take

the allention away from aspects of content and distract more than help

‘The correction of errors is apparently a complicated issue which has been open to a preat deal of discussion, Despite ifs controversy, there appears to be a growing cnsensns among the mmyority of rescarchers and language practitioners [hai cror correction plays an important role in the process of second and foreign language acquisition The debate has shifted to the question of how to make best use of error comection for the sake of more

‘beneficial 1carning

5 The Role of Oral Error Correction

When it comes to ciror comcction it specifics corrceting both oral and written

exrors, This study, however, is patticularly concemed with the correction of oral exrors

and Ranta’s (1997) study of oral error correction in the context of immersion classracms

‘has strongly influctwed lalor đovsloprnents of the matlar It has provided the basis for morc comprehensive and systematic research into oral error couection in SLA and increased

great interest in the application of different types of error correction in language teaching

The role of oral error correction has bocome @ controversial issue among many linguists, tesearchars and language practitioners Some researchers imply that teachers shouid not correct students” spoken errors, Truscott (1999), for example, provides an in- depth investigation against delivering oral error correction on grammar lle mentions some obstacles facing tcachcrs and icamers in giving and tecciving effective oral cxror correction, including the ability to identify the error without ambiguity, to evaluate the intended ineaning correctly, and to deal with the error within the context in an appropriala way, The supporters of this debate include Allwright (1975), Fanselow (1977), and

Hendrickson (1978) However, Lyster, Lightbown, and Spada’s (1999) disapprove of

TruscoiUs argument, They claim strong support for the provision of orat error correction

and consistently roport a dasire for it A mumibor of toeent studics have also demonstrated the positive effect of oral error coxrection, They have shown that the correction of oral

etrors can contribute to L2 language acquisition (Sheen, 2010)

Oral crror correetion in RSI and EFT classrooms is regarded as an instrament for teachers to immediately help students correct their errors so as to prevent fossilization,

“the process by which non-target forms become fixed” (Ellis 1997:353), and to achieve

‘boticr results, The cffactivencss of that instiument, however, depends on the approaches to Janguage teaching Traditionally, errors have been considered negative, yet this view has changed since @ communicative approach was adopted The shift has been from a form- focused lcaching approach, which puts morc cmphøsis on correctness regarding pronmciation and grammar, to meaning-focused approach, which pays more attention to vocatndary and meaning and tolerates more mistakes and errors Both approaches are

signiflcant tơ linglish language teaching and therefore need an even distribution It is of

gteal importance that the Icachor is aware of when formn- focused instruction is approprials and in what situations meaning-focused instruction would have a better effect in order to balance fluency work, without correction, with accuracy work, where correction is used positively

The correction of oral errors obviously requires much consideration because of the fact that spoken ecrors in normal communication often happen even when people are spouking in their mother lougus, The place of oral orror correetion in the classroom depends on what is considered the main objective of the target Janguage learning that teachers expect their students to achieve

6 Techniques of Oral Error Correctian

‘There are different ways of delivering error correction in language classrooms ‘Ihis

study utilizes three major types of error correction suggested by Lyster and Moti (2006):

cxpticil conection, tcuasis, and prompts, Explicit and rocasts supply tcarners with tagel yeformulations of their non-target output Prompts, on the other hand, include a variety of signals other than altemative reformulations that push leamers to selé-zepair (¢.g

cleilation, metitinguistic clues, clarification raquesls and repetition) Such technique using gestures and facial expression proposed by Edge (1989) and Mumford and Dam

(2005) are also included in this classification Following are firther description and

illustration of these crror correction types which cau be applicd for the corcction of oral

errors in language classrooms

6.1, Explicit Correction: The teacher clearly indicates that what the student said was

incorcet and then provides the corrcet form using such tenns as “I’m sorry is wrong /

You shouldn't say 2 Vou should say / We don't say / We (can) sap {Pay

attention to / There is a mistake in |.”

Example 1: $: Last weekend we ge to the countryside

‘'T: Pm sorry, “go” is wrong You should say “went”

6.2, Reeasts: The tcachcr docs not dircetly point out that the students’ uftcrance was

incorrect but repeats all or part of the students” utterance using the correct form

Fxample 2; 8: Thave a history Murstari? lesson al 8:55 on Thursday

required A clarification request includes such phrasos as “Pardon? / I don't understand

7 What do you mean by ?”

Example 3: T: How ofen đo you wateh'TV?

S: Fourteen a week

T: Fourteen what?

6.3.1 kiicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions (c.g “How do we suy thal, in English?) by pausing to allow the studenl to complete the teacher’s utterance, or by asking the student to reformulate his or her utterance (¢.g “Please say that again.”)

Example 4; T: What kinds of film do you like?

S: Ilike cartoons and ,.er amusing .et

T: So an arnusing film, we'll call thata ?

Example 5: 8:1 find horror fits really inerested

T: You find horror films really ?

6.3.3 Metalinguis!

Clues: The teacher poses questions (e.g “Do we say it like that?") or provides information related to the formation of the students utterance

Example 6: — 5: Lprefer London to New York because it has more park

T: Do we say “park” here? “Park” is singular It must be in the plural aller

gestures, These techniques help studenis realize their ctrors and get a chanos for self-

correetiom

6.3.5 Kinger-counting: This techmique can be used when a sound, a syllable in a word or

a word in a sentence is missing

Example 8: $: It we had had more time, we cauld have visit alt the plaecs

T: Well, vi sit ?

(As the teacher says “vi sit ”, he holds up three fingers of one hand to show that the word has three syllables in it, He then uscs the other hand to point to the first finger as he says “vi” and the second finger as he says “sit”, As he points to the third finger, he pauses

for the student to add the “ed”

6.3.6 Facial Expression: The teacher points out the student’s error with a questioning expression on his face such as tuming face to the side and frowning

6.3.7 Gestures: The teacher shows the student where the cmor is by using gestures with his head (e.g shaking head, tuming head or pulling ear as if he did not hear quite properly) Also, the teacher can create his own correction symbots with hands and fingsrs (cg crossing hands over to show wrong order, making a scissors motion with fingers to cut out unnecessary words, using a cireling hand motion to prompt continuous, holding thamb and forefinger close together to show a stnall word missing) These hand signs may take time for students to learn but they can bring humor to the task of correction and avoid

‘the need for wards

6.4, Delayed Correction

As suggested by Edge (1989), itis important for some of the time that students are not cotrected but simply encouraged She explains that students need the experienee of uninterropied and meaningful communication whon they ars Irying to use the language in seal situations Thus, encouragement should be paid more attention than correction if the teacher desires to bring about fluency in language use When the teacher hears errars, he is advised to lake nots of thom TC thers arg common errors, the teacher cam wrile them on the

‘board after the activity and ask for correction from the class In case teacher hears a lot of

errors in imporfant points she has been trying to teach, she need not worry much about

correction but think of other ways of presenting the same point again

In short, a good strategy tor comecting oral errors can boost student motivation, build confidence, and create a satisfying learning experience However, the nature of such

an oral error corraclion stralegy remains unclear and even controversial In order lo makg

‘best use of the exror correction techniques, teachers should take many factors into great consideration, especially those related to the feamers such as their neads, language proficiency and learning attitudes

7 Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction

Tt is obvious that individual students differ fom each other in their aHitrdes

towards errors and error correction The differences are proved to have great impact on the effectiveness of teachers’ error correction strategies ‘I'hus, being aware of students’

attitudes and expectations will help teachers to choose the appropriate ways of error

correction and lo take best use of their choice

There have been a number of studies on students’ perceptions, beliefs and

preferences for the correction of errors (e.g Schulz, 1996; Mackey et al, 2000; Ancker, 2000; Schulz, 2001; Salinki, 2001; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Pask, 2010)

Concerning students’ views on the role of oral error correction, Schulz (2001)

conducted a survey to 122 Colombian foreign language instructors 607 Colombian foreign

Janguag: students, 92 U.S forcign language instructors, and 824 U.S EFL students The findings revealed that students from both cultures expressed strong expectations for

teachers to correct oral errors during class, with 94% of U.S and 95% of Colombian

students

In another study, Markey et al (2000) investigated how learners perceive error

correction and whether leamers’ perceptions affect their language development ‘I'he

researchers found thal loamars were generally sconrate about their poreeptions of phonological and lexical comection; however, leamers’ perceptions of morphosyntactic correction were usually confiised with correction about semantics ot lexis

Researchers have compared teachers’ and students’ perceptions of error correction and found mismatehcs between them Schulz’s (1996, 2001) studics revealed that students” attitudes toward error correction were more favorable than their teachers’ attitudes; that is,

learners want more etror eoecdon Sehulz argues that “such lack of pedagogical face

only 25% af teachers answorad “yes” while 76% of students answered “yes,” The teachers explained that comrection could have negative impact on students’ confidence and motivation, whereas the reason for students” expectation was the importance of Tearning to spoak English corselly Anckor suggests that teachers should establish clear objectives in lesson plans, diseuss the learning process with students, and employ altemative types of correction that can be beneficial to students

to close the gap between teachers’ and learners’ expectations,

Students’ expectations for ciror cozcction methods were varied in different

investigations Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) investigated how teachers and students

perceive the effectiveness of oral error correction The study conducting with ten teachers and eleven students in an EFL context showed the result that the students found constant correction unhelpfill because it inhibits language production ‘This result complied with the one from Satinki’s (2001) study in which 89 students participating in a survey say that they

do nol like to be corcoled white they are talking for fzar of boing nervous or toss thair contidance However, students wished to be comected by their teachers but in a more selective and explicit way with a foous on a smaller number Students expressed that lenchors should devote more time to cach correction, and they shonld also use mare strategies and resources when correcting oral errors

One of the latest studies on leamers’ preferences for error correction was caried out by Park (2010) with 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English speaking teachers in Northem California ‘The findings of the survey showed that both the teachers and students agreed that errors should be treated, but students wanted more correction than their

teachers thoughl The students regarded immediale ervor coreetian thal can interrupt the

flow of conversation as ettective, Both the teachers and students believed that serious and

frequent errors should be treated, but the students wanted to receive more error treatment,

even on infrequent and individual errors Lliitation, explicit feedback, and implicit correction were the most favored types of crror corrcetion among: the students The students with high anxiety welcomed all sources of error correction, but those with low anxiety did not value their peers’ correction

‘There has been an increased inlerast in the area of students’ altitudes and preferences for feachers’ cotrection of oral exrors, Researchers imply that it is necessary for teachers to ascertain students” specific perceptions, beliefs and expectations in order to

adjust teachers’ instructional practices appropriately However, the previous studies have amainly focused on the settings of colleges and universities In Vietnam in particular, to my knowledge, there is also relatively little research into this issue in the contexts of high

discusses the significance of students’ beliefs and attitudes towards language teaching and

learning in the way that it enhances teachers to make best use of the methods for their

effective language education

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY

in the previous chapter, 1 have reviewed relevant literature to form the theorctical background for my study Uhis chapter presents the methodology 1 chose for the

achievement of the aims of the study, the analysis of the data colleoted and the đisơnssion

of the findings,

IL1 Methodology

IL.1.1 Context of the Study

‘rhe study was conducted at Do Son Boarding Iligh School in Ilai Phong city ‘Ihe

school is situated in the district of Do Son and is only ten years of age It has a total of 388 students and 53 teachers fiom different parts of the city

“There are three teachers in the English group of the school ‘They are all female aged between 29 and 33 and they have al least five years of teachin experience Two oul

of three teachers were trained at Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies and one of them is now studying for M.A degree at this university

‘The rascarch was currisd out with the participation of 10" grade sludents Most of them come fiom the remote islands and rural areas around the city and they generally have rather poor educational standard, hey find leaning Linglish, especially speaking skill, really challenging

The English language teaching and Icarning in my school follow the national curriculum - just ike many other schools around the country English is taught as a compulsory subject and, specifically, as one of the core subjects in the national cxaminations at the ond of compulsory education, The textbook and the syllabus for

English are prescribed by the Ministry of Kducation and ‘raining ‘The “Tieng Anh 10”

course book is designed under the light af coromumicative approach in which students learn not only the primary aspects of Ianguage such as grammat, vocabulary and phonology but also engaging classroom activities throngh the 4 skills: listening, speaking, reading and

writing,

Tn reality, the teaching and learning of English in my school has nol reached much satisfaction as required due to both intemal and external factors Conceming the matter of English speaking in particular, the situation seems to be more problematic Although they have becn Icarning English for at Icast four yoars, most of the students find it really difficult to speak in English and thus spoken errors are made very often This is due to such constraints as students” lack of language proficiency, low motivation in speaking activities, lage-sized cla

, not well-equipped classrooms, and the neglect of speaking

19

improvement due to pressure of examination success on the part of both teachers and

students

Towards successful language teaching and leaning, 1t is essential for the teachers

to investigate the issues concerned and find out effective solutions

3 What are the students’ preferences for teachers* correction of oral errors?

11.1.3 Subjects of the Study

‘The subjects in this study were 120 students both male and female ftom three classes of grade 10 in Do Son Boarding Iligh School in [lai Phong city [aif of them have

‘been learning English since grade 6 and the rest since grade 3 These students vary in terms

of background, ability, interest, learning styles and attitudes, and so forth Of the three classes, class 10C has the mast incompetent students

The teacher participants consisted of two female teachers from the English group of amy school One teacher has been teaching English for 9 years and the other 5 years Both

of them vohuttarily and enthusiastically participated in this study

There are reasons for my choice of 10" grade students as the subjects of this study

On the one hand, students of grade 10 are more eager to speak English in class than those

of 11" or 12" grades and thus they are believed to have more interest in the issue

investigaled and invest more thoughls for il On the other hand, findings of the study arc hoped to provide teachers with practical and useful recommendations as soon as possible for better teaching and leaming in the forthcoming school years

11.1.4, Data Colfection Instruments

In order to obtain data for the study, such instruments as survey questionnaire,

scmi-structurcd interviews and classroom obscrvations were cmployed.

‘The main instrument for collecting data in the study was the questionnaire It is

considered the mos! popular tncthod of data collzction for its efficicney in terms of time, effort and expense It also produces clear information as the knowledge needed is controlled by the questions, Besides, data can be gathered in different locations at different timnes, yet comparable (McDonough, 1 & 8, 1997) In arder ta achisve the purpose of the study, I designed a questionnaire (4pperdix 1) which comprised 10 questions of such types

as multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, ranked questions and scaled questions

Ul was tanslaled into Vicmamase with the hotp of the two teacher participants and clearly instructed to ensure students’ understandmg of all the questions before answering them

‘the student identity was not required so that students could feel free and comfortable to express their opinions, hinics more honesl responses

‘The questionnaire is designed as follows:

Questions 1-2 are aimed to find out students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral exror correction

Questions 34 deal with studcnts’ reactions to their tcacher’s actual practice of oral error correction

Questions 5-10 are concerned with students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors: what types of arrors they want to be corrected (Questions 5-6), when and how they want teachers’ errer correction to be delivered (Questions 7-9), and whe they prefer to

correct the errors (Question 10)

Interviewing is also 2 popular (echnique TL has a polentiat for openness, giving zoom for individual expression and information exchange in ordinary language with all its freedom and sensitivity (McDonough, J & S., 1997) In order to gain more in-depth information about students’ altitudes towards their lsacher’s ircatment of crrors, T decided

to interview a small group of students selected randomly from each class The interviews were designed in a semi-structured form which can allow for ticher interactions and mare personalized responses while remaining in control of the interviewer /4pgendix 2)

‘The other supplementary instrument for data collection was classroom observations

which were carried out in three classes of 10" grade during the study ‘he main purpose of

this instrument was to seck for more dolaited information ahoul what the Ioaoliers aelualty

did and how the students responded to teachers’ instruction (Appendix 3}

21

11.1.5, Data Colfcction Procedure

Tn the first pla

fhe questionnaires were pilot-tested with 20 sturtertt participants to check whether there emerged any problems for the respondents in answering the questions Fortunately, the respondents in the pilot-testing found no difficulty or ambiguity in

s with a small group

of ten students randomly selected from the three classes Vietnamese was used in the interviews to guarantee good understanding During the interviews, the researcher took note of the students’ answers Due to technical constraints, the interviews as well as the classroom observations were not audiotaped or videotaped

During the research, classroom observations were conducted with the three 10”

grade classes in several periods Tn each class observed, the researcher acled as a non participant observer and took notes of the teacher’s instruction conceming frequency of delivering correction, the types of etrors which were in focus of the teacher’s correction

and the Igacher’s employment of comection techniques

11.2, Findings an¢ Discussion

‘The following results address the three research questions in the study

11.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral crrors and oral error correction

Question 1 and 2 in the survey questionnaire aimed at exploring students” awareness of the rofc of oral errors and teachers’ oral crvor correction in the EFT

classrooms The collected data are summarized in the tables below

Table I: Suedents’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning

Respondents Very Necessary Necessary Fairly Necessary | Unnecessary

‘As can be seen from table 1, a majority of the students were aware of the usefulness

of oral errors in English language learning (65% agree and 15% strongly agree) Most of

the Tespondenis slated that sj

đảng is » difficult skill and the occurence of crrors in English speaking is therefore unavoidable, Many of them explained that making errors gives them chance to understand more about what they have Jeamt and what needs to be improved in the future, hence better learning development In general, there was a consensus among many studenis that “lo or is human” and “failure is the mother of success”, which built their positive attitudes towards the making of errors in the classroom

Tlowever, there were 8.3% of the students showing their disagreement on the important role of oral errors, Those who had neutral ideas about this matter make up a

proportion of 11.7% Itis a common belief among these students that errors indicate their

failure in language learning and, unfortunately, degrade their leaming progress in general and speaking ability in particular Thus, making rors is not helpful bul unacceplable and amust be avoided

Regarding students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction, the results proscnted in table 2 showed that uo stndent denied the significance of levchars’ correction Seventy-tive students (62.5%) emphasized that it was very necessary for teachers to deliver correction of students’ spoken ezzors ‘The most common reason for this posilive altitude was that it would help students improvz langunga accuracy which they considered very important to effective speaking Many students stated that they need their errors to be corrected so that potentially repeated errors could be avoided, Every time they are corrected, the students could get, beller understanding and memorizing of the language and thus their speaking ability would be enhanced Some students added that exror correction would help them not only speak English better but improve other language

aspeets and skills as well

23

11.2.2, Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral crror correction:

Question 3 and question 4 in the questionnaire were concerned with the students? reactions 10 their teachers’ correction of errors in actual practice The findings are presented in the following tables

Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction

According to the results shown in table 3, 33.3% of the students could completely

understand their teachers’ correction of oral errors, whereas those who understood it with

lite clarity made up a higher percentage (64.2%) Tlowever, the students confessing thal

they could not understand anything accounted for a very low proportion (2.5%) When

asked about the factors affecting their comprehension, 88% of the students supplied the answers while 22% left the space for providing reasons empty or just ended the question

with “T don’ know”

One possible reason to explain why many students said they roughly understood

their teachers’ correction of oral errors is students’ language proficiency When the teacher corrceled spoken errors, many students with limited language knowlzdge and

ability found it rather difficult to comprehend the correction right away A related factor is

students’ Jack of attention and loss of concentration in such noisy classrooms, which

probably caused a failure for students to catch what the teacher had corrected

Another plausible factor that explains why not all the teacher correction was

completely understood by the students is the quality of correction regarding its consistency, accuracy and comprohensibility Some students slated that the teachers”

correction strategies were not quite suitable for their language ability and needs Some

others said they could hardly understand the teachers’ explanation for it was either too fast

of not clear enough Besides, a small number of students with high level of learning anxicty confessed that they were affaid of asking the lcacher for re-correction so thal they could get better understanding of their problem

As revealed in the classroom observation data, the most common correction

adopted by both tsachers was recast (8 the leacher repeals the sludent’s

tooimi

utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error) This method seemed

to bring Little effectiveness to the students off low level as it sometimes caused a mismatch

‘betwoon luachar’s intention and studonl’s interpretation, ally when correcting

grammatical and Hexical errors As observed in class 10C where most of the students have Jow language proficiency, some errors were repeated during the oral activities for the students did not roativa which crvors they Imad made and how they had hoon corrected (e.g, the evor in pronouncing the word “because”) Additionally, as observed in all three classes, the teachers sometimes delivered correction in a hurry due to press of time and this therefore led to vague understanding of the correction among many students

The answers to the question whether teachers’ comection of oral crrors helped students improve their speaking skill was analyzed and presented in table 4 ‘The findings show That students’ speaking skill was mostly improved by the teacher conection, yet with different degrezs of improvement 39.2% of the students claimed that they got much improvement in speaking English while 46.7% stated that their oral skill was improved moderalely Only 14.1% of the students complained thal they gol Hide improvement and,

‘teachers.

IL2.3, Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors:

Questions 5-10 in the qu

prmaire dealt, with how sludents expzcled their errors to

be corrected regarding types of errors, timing of error correction, error correction techniques and forms

11.2.3.1 Preferred types of errors to be corrected

Questions 5 and question 6 were to explore students’ preferences for the types of

errors to be corrected ‘The data collected are described in the tables as follows

Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errars ta be corrected

Table 6: Students" preferences for amount of error to be corrected

1: All errors; 2: Repeated errors; 3: Only a few major errors;

4: Only errors that might interfere with communicating ideas

it can bz seen from table 5 that the students desired to receive teachers’ error

correction in the areas of grammar (40%) and pronunciation (34.1%) more than in

vocabulary (16.7%) and content (13.4%) The students indicated that grammatical errors

should receive the highest attention, closely followed by phonological errors

‘The students” preference for the correction of grammatical errors may be explained

of grammar in order to achieve success in such tests and examinations, Therefore, it would

‘be reasonable to assume thal the students’ priority for the correction of granunatical errors