B a thesis DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TEACHERS’ AND LEARNERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ERROR FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING CLASSROOM

The participants were given a 20-item questionnaire to assess their beliefs about 1 committing errors and significance of giving error feedback, 2 kind of errors to be corrected and degr

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

B.A Thesis

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TEACHERS’ AND LEARNERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ERROR FEEDBACK

IN EFL WRITING CLASSROOM

Supervisor: Tran Thi Chau Pha, M.Ed Student: Vo Thi Tuyet Hong

Student ID: 7075890 Class: NN0752A2 Course: 33

CanTho, May 2011

Secondly, I am also grateful to Mr Van Van Luan, Ms Tran Thi Kim Kha, and Ms

Le Thi Phuong Nhung, who gave me convenient conditions in collecting the data for

my research Especially, my best regard is respectfully sent to Ms Vo Thi Kim Hong,

my former high-school teacher, for her zealous assistance in delivering questionnaires

to participants

Also, I faithfully thank 10 EFL teachers and 96 students in class 11A1 and class 11A2

at Vo Van Kiet high school, who responded to the questionnaires and supplied me with valuable information Without their cooperation, my research questions would not have been accomplished

I would also like to express my gratitude to my friends and my roommates, Ly Thi Anh Tuyet, Nguyen Thi Thanh Bien, Tran Thu Anh, Tran Thu Van, Truong Thi Phuong Thao, Nguyen Thi Phuong Thuy, for their encouragements and for so willingly helping me with facilities serving my study

Finally, my special appreciation goes to my mother, my aunt, and my brother for their unconditional love and support

Vo Thi Tuyet Hong

ABSTRACT

Studies on teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback suggested that if learners’ beliefs are in line with teachers’ beliefs, a good EFL writing classroom environment will be established Such a match has a great impact on the entire learning process, which will lead to both effective teaching and successful learning (Diab, 2006; Halimi, 2008) The present study aims to find out the existence of different beliefs about error feedback in EFL writing classroom held by teachers and students at Vo Van Kiet high school Two parallel versions of questionnaires were distributed to 96 EFL high-school students and 10 EFL teachers of Vo Van Kiet high school to collect the descriptive data The participants were given a 20-item questionnaire to assess their beliefs about (1) committing errors and significance of giving error feedback, (2) kind of errors to be corrected and degree of providing correction, (3) techniques used for error feedback The SPSS program was used to analyze the quantitative data from the questionnaires The results revealed that both teachers and learners held negative beliefs about the committing errors However, they were in agreement with the importance of giving error feedback More interestingly, the findings also indicated considerable discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about types of errors to be corrected, degree of supplying correction and techniques used for error feedback On the basis of the research outcomes, discussions and pedagogical implications which can be applied in EFL writing classroom in the context of Vietnam are accordingly proposed

TÓM LƯỢC

Những nghiên cứu của Diab (2006) và Halimi (2008) về quan điểm của học sinh và giáo viên đối với việc sửa lỗi khẳng định rằng nếu quan điểm của học sinh thống nhất với quan điểm của giáo viên thì nó sẽ tạo ta một môi trường học kỹ năng viết rất tốt

Và sự thống nhất quan điểm này có ảnh hưởng rất lớn đến toàn bộ quá trình học Nó không chỉ mang lại hiệu quả trong giảng dạy mà còn đem đến sự thành công trong việc học Bài nghiên cứu này được thực hiện nhằm tìm ra sự khác biệt trong quan điểm của học sinh và của giáo viên trường phổ thông Võ Văn Kiệt về vấn đề sửa lỗi trong lớp học dạy kỹ năng viết Có 96 học sinh và 10 giáo viên trường phổ thông Võ Văn Kiệt tham gia trả lời bảng câu hỏi nghiên cứu Mỗi bảng câu hỏi nêu ra 20 ý kiến liên quan đến vấn đề sửa lỗi bài viết nhằm đánh giá quan điểm của họ về (1) việc phạm lỗi và tầm quan trọng của việc sửa lỗi, (2) loại lỗi nào nên được sửa và mức độ sửa lỗi ra sao, (3) cách nào nên sử dụng trong việc sửa lỗi bài viết Số liệu thu thập được từ các câu trả lời được phân tích bằng phần mềm SPSS Qua phân tích, kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy cả giáo viên và học sinh đều có quan điểm khá tiêu cực đối với việc phạm lỗi trong bài viết Vì vậy, họ cho rằng việc sửa lỗi bài viết là quan trọng Thú vị hơn là kết quả nghiên cứu cũng cho thấy có sự không tương hợp giữa quan điểm của giáo viên và của học sinh về loại lỗi nên được sửa, mức độ sửa lỗi và cách

để sửa lỗi bài viết Dựa vào kết quả thu được, tác giả cũng đưa ra ý kiến thảo luận, những đề xuất liên quan đến quá trình giảng dạy và hướng nghiên cứu mới

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i

Abstract (English version) ii

Abstract (Vietnamese version) iii

Table of contents iv

List of tables vi

List of figures vi

Abbreviation vii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Research aims and questions 2

1.3 Research hypothesis 3

1.4 Research significance 3

1.5 Research organization 3

Chapter 2: Literature Review 5

2.1 An introduction to error 5

2.1.1 Definition of error 5

2.1.2 Types of error 6

2.1.3 Significance of committing errors 6

2.2 Error feedback in EFL writing classroom 7

2.2.1 Definition of feedback 7

2.2.2 Error feedback 8

2.2.3 Effect of giving error feedback 9

2.2.4 Some techniques for error feedback 9

2.2.4.1 Reformulation (overall correction) 9

2.2.4.2 Coding (Coded correction) 10

2.2.4.3 Underlining (Uncoded correction) 10

2.3 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback 11

2.3.1 Teachers’ beliefs 11

2.3.2 Students’ beliefs 12

2.3.3 Some studies on the discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback 13

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 15

3.1 Research design 15

3.2 Participants 15

3.3 Instruments 15

3.4 Research procedures 16

Chapter 4: Results and Discussions 18

4.1 Results of the study 18

4.1.1 Common teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback 18

4.1.2 Discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback 20

4.2 Discussions on the results of the study 22

4.2.1 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about committing errors and the significance of giving error feedback 22

4.2.2 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about kinds of errors to be corrected and degree of providing correction 23

4.2.3 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about techniques used for error feedback 24

Chapter 5: Implications, Limitations, Recommendations and Conclusion 26

5.1 Implications for classroom teaching in the context of Vietnam 26

5.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research 27

5.3 Conclusion 28

References viii

Appendices xii

Appendix 1 xiii

Appendix 2 xvii

Appendix 3 xxi

Appendix 4 xxv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Clusters of questionnaire items 16

Table 2: Common beliefs of students and teachers about error feedback 18

Table 3: Different beliefs of students and teachers about error feedback 20

ABBREVIATION

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will address the following five sections: (1) the rationale of the research, (2) the research aim and questions, (3) the research hypothesis, (4) the significance of the research, and (5) the thesis organization

1.1 Rationale

In EFL writing, it is essential for teachers to give feedback on their students’ written work This is because writing is a complex, recursive and creative process (Siva, 1990 cited in Spear, 2006) Also, students often commit errors in their paper Thus, the most important thing teachers do for students in teaching writing is responding to their written work so that the students can realize their errors and get progress in the writing (Vengadasamy, 2002) Error feedback, therefore, becomes one of the key issues in English writing course (Liu, 2008)

Specifically, the topic of error correction in language classroom tends to spark the controversy between teachers and researchers (Naeini, 2008) In the field of EFL teaching and learning, a great deal of research has been conducted to examine the effectiveness of corrective feedback for writing (Binglan & Jia, 2010; Grami, 2005; Sheppard, 1992; Truscott, 2007) The findings from these studies reflect two contentious viewpoints on error feedback Some researchers consider error correction

as harmful, time consuming and ineffective (Sheppard, 1992; Truscott, 2007) Others defend the use of error feedback and believe that correcting students’ written errors would help them improve the quality and accuracy of their writing (Binglan & Jia, 2010; Grami, 2005) In spite of considerable controversies about the effect of error feedback, two factors remain clear First, writing teachers believe that responding to students’ errors is a vital part of their job Second, students are eager to receive error

feedback on their writing and believe that they benefit from it (Wang, 2010)

Significantly, an area that has called for much attention recently is how students and teachers perceive error feedback Kern (1995, cited in Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005) claims that the consistency in teachers’ and students’ beliefs is crucial for understanding the learning process Namely, conflicts that may augment frustration, anxiety, lack of motivation on the part of the student, or even their giving up the

learning of foreign language study can be prevented Furthermore, if teachers and learners have similarities in their views on error feedback, students may be helped and motivated in their writing, which will ultimately lead to higher English proficiency in writing (Wang, 2010) Additionally, error feedback techniques are more likely productive

In a particular EFL writing classroom, finding some common grounds with space for both teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback is necessary The reason is that differences between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs may provoke a discrepancy about what is useful to emphasize in language lessons, which may obviously cause miscommunication and result in unsuccessful teaching and learning (Diab, 2006; Halimi, 2008) These discrepancies can also hamper the effectiveness of corrective feedback (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010) Consequently, the aim of encouraging students

to learn from errors and to get the promotion in their next writing will not be satisfactorily obtained by teachers It is thus vital to continue exploring this issue in different contexts Studies on students’ and teachers’ preferences for error feedback have mostly been set out in university settings (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Diab, 2006; Halimi, 2008) However, there is a lack of research conducted in high-school contexts

in general and in Vietnamese high-school settings in particular Lee (2008) asserts that

a focus on high school setting is significant because by the time students enter college

or university, they will have been exposed to EFL writing for a substantial period of time, long enough to develop positive attitudes towards EFL writing

In an attempt to get a deeper understanding of the issue, this study aims to explore the discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback in EFL writing classroom at Vo Van Kiet high school in Vietnam In addition, it is intended to offer some implications for classroom teaching in the context of Vietnam

1.2 Research aims and questions

This research aims to explore three aspects in teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback: (1) their beliefs about committing errors and the importance of giving error feedback, (2) their beliefs about what errors to be corrected and the degree of providing correction, (3) their beliefs about techniques used for error feedback Furthermore, the study will investigate whether there are any considerable discrepancies between their beliefs

Specifically, the study seeks the answers for the following questions:

1) What are teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about committing errors and the importance of giving error feedback?

2) According to teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, what types of error should be corrected and how much correction should be provided?

3) In teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, which techniques should be used for error feedback?

4) Are there any discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs?

1.3 Research hypothesis

Based on the relevant literature review and the research questions, it is hypothesized that there will be considerable discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about: (1) committing errors and the importance of giving error feedback, (2) what errors to be corrected and how much to provide correction, (3) what techniques to be used for error feedback

1.4 Research significance

The findings of this research will be helpful to both high-school teachers and learners Through learners’ beliefs, teachers can know what learners view on committing errors, what they want and expect to be corrected in their written work, and what techniques the learners think are effective for error feedback Being aware of these beliefs will allow teachers to choose appropriate ways of correction to serve their students’ needs This will also result in getting learners to gain more success in their English writing In addition, students may be instructed to have proper attitudes toward their errors Thus, learners can overcome fear of making errors in writing, which will create a friendly and relaxed atmosphere in the EFL writing classroom

1.5 Research organization

The thesis consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction, presents the rationale for conducting the study, the aim of

the research, the research questions and hypothesis, the research significance and the organization of the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature review, provides a theoretical framework for the study

including the definition of error, types of error and the importance of committing

errors Besides, the definition of feedback and error feedback, the effect of giving error feedback and some common techniques for giving error feedback will be discussed Then, teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback and some studies

on discrepancies between their beliefs will be mentioned at the end of the chapter

Chapter 3, Research Methodology, describes the methodology used in the research

involving research design, participants, instruments and the procedures for data collection and analysis

Chapter 4, Results and Discussions, reports and represents the findings of the

research

Chapter 5, Implications, Limitations, Recommendations and Conclusion,

summarizes what is addressed in the study Next, limitations and some pedagogical implications from this research will be discussed Finally, directions for further research will be provided

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter includes three parts The first part introduces the definition of error, types of error and the importance of committing errors The second part discusses the definition of feedback and error feedback, the effect of giving error feedback as well as some common techniques for error feedback In the third part, teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback and some studies on discrepancies between their beliefs will be mentioned

2.1 An introduction to error

2.1.1 Definition of error

In general terms, an “error” is simply a “mistake”(Cobuild, 2004) Within the context

of teaching and learning English, errors and mistakes are terms commonly used to refer to students’ wrong performance in the language (Catalán, 1992) However, in Error Analysis, a distinction has been made between errors and mistakes (Maicusi, Maicusi, & López, 2000) According to Ellis (1997, p.17 ), “Errors reflect gaps in a learner’s knowledge, they occur because the learner does not know what is correct Mistakes reflect occasion lapses in performance, they occur because the learner is unable to perform what he or she knows.” The former is what Chomsky (1965, cited

in Hashimoto, 2004) calls “competence error” and the later “performance error”

Although Ellis (1997) suggested a distinction between an error and a mistake, he finally concludes that ultimately a clear distinction between them may not be possible Corder (1967) also supports that how to determine what is a learner’s mistake and what is a learner’s error is extremely difficult This issue calls for a much more sophisticated study and deeper analysis of errors

Considering that the purpose of the current study focuses on teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback, it is not of primary importance to distinguish errors and mistakes Accordingly, the term “error” in this study is used to mean both performance mistake and competence error made by learners

2.1.2 Types of error

Errors can be classified into several different types For example, on the basis of the distinction between competence and performance, there are competence errors and performance errors (Catalán, 1992) In terms of the cause of errors, there are interlingual errors and intralingual errors (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982) Concerning with comprehensibility, global and local errors are distinguished (Catalán, 1992; Ellis, 1997; Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992) From the respect of correctness, errors are grouped into overt and covert ones (Dulay, et al., 1982) Since the focus of the review will be shifted to categorization which concerns more specifically with written errors, the research just represents two criteria categorizing errors in terms of comprehensibility and form correctness

With regard to comprehensibility, errors are divided into global and local errors (Catalán, 1992; Ellis, 1997; Richards, et al., 1992) A global error is an error in the use

of a major element of a sentence structure which makes a sentence or utterance difficult or impossible to understand In contrast, a local error refers to an error in the use of an element of a sentence structure, which does not cause problems of comprehension

In terms of correctness, Coder (1967), Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) put errors into groups of covert errors and overt ones The former is defined as errors which do not appear on the surface of the utterance but are present within the message including errors of organization, coherence, content or idea Very frequently, these errors are hard to detect and may pass totally unnoticed Overt errors, on the contrary, are clearly observable in the surface structure of a sentence and judged as either incorrect or inappropriate This kind of errors is also known as surface-level errors which consist

of errors in grammar, vocabulary, and the actual mechanics of writing such as spelling and punctuation (Greenslade & Brasdefer, 2006; Halimi, 2008)

2.1.3 Significance of committing errors

Hendricson (1978, cited in Rahimi, 2010) claims that making errors is a necessary and natural process of language learning Biao (2010) also states that errors are a clear sign of learning in language acquisition process which provides a visible proof that learning is actually taking place Making errors is therefore regarded as a natural phenomenon integral to the process of learning a foreign language According to

Coder (1967), a learner’s errors are significant not only to teachers but also to students themselves

In the first place, errors show teachers their learners’ progress, explicitly how far toward the goal the learners have progressed and consequently, what remains for them

to learn Therefore, from the analysis of the learners’ errors, teachers can determine whether they can move on the next item they have been working on (Zhu, 2010) Additionally, errors indicate to teachers which part of the target language students have most difficulty producing correctly and which types detract most from a learner’ ability to acquire language effectively (Catalán, 1992) Thus, by describing and categorizing learners’ errors, teachers may make up a picture of linguistic features causing their learning problems, which provides teachers the information for designing an improved syllabus to aid students to obtain their goal in EFL writing

Errors are also essential to the learners Seemingly, it is a method the learners use to test their hypotheses about the nature of the language they are learning (Coder, 1967)

As a result, through errors students can see what they are struggling to master, what concepts they have misunderstood and what extra work they need (Coder, 1981 cited

in Zhu, 2010) Committing errors is thus a healthy problem because when errors occur, the correction comes and with correction emerges learning According to Lynch (2008, p.2), “The more errors learners make, the more correction is done The more correction is done, the more learning takes place”

To sum up, errors are the evidence of the learning process Both teachers and learners should be conscious of the significance of errors in language learning as it might help teachers understand why and how they can interfere to assist their students (Coder,

1981 cited in Zhu, 2010) Also, the teachers should look at learners’ errors as the sign

of development and progress in their learning rather than as a sign of failure and inability to master the new language

2.2 Error feedback in EFL writing classroom

Kavaliauskiené, Anuesiené and Kaminskiené (2009), feedback is generally a process

of sharing observations, concerns and suggestions with intention of improving both personal and organizational performance

However, regarding the aims of the research, feedback will strictly refer to the written feedback by teachers as response to students’ errors in writing The terms feedback, correction, comment in this study will be used interchangeably and they do not constitute any real differences

2.2.2 Error feedback

Error feedback is the feedback teachers give on students’ errors, which could be direct

or indirect (Lee, 2004) Direct feedback is defined as overt correction of students’ errors; that is, teachers locate and correct errors for students Contrarily, indirect feedback refers to situations where teachers indicate that an error has been made but

do not provide a correction, thereby leaving students to diagnose and correct it (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005)

From another perspective, error feedback is classified into two categories of form feedback and content feedback (Grami, 2005; Ken, 2004; Magno & Amarles, 2011; Williams, 2003) Feedback on form consists of marks used by the teacher to correct errors on grammatical features, capitalization, punctuation, tenses and other surface structures Feedback on content involves teachers’ comments on the organization of the idea in the composition

Besides, error feedback may be selective or comprehensive (Erel & Bulut, 2007; Lee, 2004) Selective feedback is teachers’ marking only some major patterns of error in a student paper In contrast, comprehensive feedback means teachers’ marking all types

of errors in students’ written work

In summary, since teachers’ responses to students’ writing are expected to help students develop their ideas fully and present them effectively, error feedback needs to cover all aspects of students’ written work including issues of content, organization, style, grammar and mechanics (Magno & Amarles, 2011) A question posed for most teachers is that whether giving error feedback is effective and necessary The answer will be discussed in the following part which focuses on the effect of error feedback

2.2.3 Effect of giving error feedback

Through the years, there have been controversial views on the effect of error feedback Truscott (1996) claims that error feedback has no effect on students’ writing and should be abandoned Inversely, other research on the effectiveness of error feedback concluded that students valued from getting error feedback and found it useful in helping them improve their writing (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Chandler, 2003; Grami, 2005; Lee, 2004) Despite the continuous debate on the effect of error feedback, Lee (2004) claims that students want to have their errors corrected, and teachers think that it is their responsibility to correct errors This is the reason why error correction continues as a beneficial way to both teachers and learners

Regarding teachers, feedback is valuable in the way it motivates their students to continue learning and acquire more language skills Consequently, teachers may feel more satisfied with their task of instructing less experienced language learners and users

With regard to students, error feedback enables students to progress in their language learning This is because the goal of feedback is to teach skills that facilitate students

to improve the proficiency in their writing (Williams, 2003) Also, students can learn from their errors when they receive periodic and supportive feedback (Lam, 2007)

In short, giving error feedback is not only crucial to teachers but also to learners Therefore, teachers should know how to respond to students’ written work so that it can encourage students’ learning With this concern, the next part will mainly place an emphasis on presenting some common techniques used for giving error feedback

2.2.4 Some techniques for error feedback

When responding to students’ written work, teachers normally employ one of the three techniques for error feedback including reformulation, coding and underlining (Vengadasamy, 2002) These techniques were also mentioned in several studies as common techniques which are generally practiced by most teachers of English They are considered as helpful tools for giving error feedback in students’ paper (Benthuysen, 2005; Liu, 2008; Wang, 2010)

2.2.4.1 Reformulation (overall correction)

Reformulation, or overall correction, refers to the way the teacher gives error feedback

on students’ written work by locating and providing the correct versions to replace

students’ errors Generally, it is believed as one of the easiest ways to correct errors because the correct forms are provided and students are given instant access to the correction they need (Wang, 2010) Nevertheless, this technique seems to be time-consuming and tedious since teachers must be overly preoccupied with marking errors and giving the correct forms of errors in their students’ writing It is also very disconcerting for students to see many words crossed out, and new words added In addition, students would not think about the errors if the right answer was written for them As a result, reformulation turns writing teachers to composition slaves and makes learners dependent on the correction by others (Maicusi, et al., 2000)

2.2.4.2 Coding (Coded correction)

Coding technique is the way teachers indicates both types and location of errors such

as T (tense); Sp (spelling); W.w (wrong word); and P (punctuation) (Agosti, 2006; Lee, 2004; Zhu, 2010) Hyland (1990, cited in Hashimoto, 2004) notes that coded correction allows teachers to reduce negative and disheartening effects of indicating mistakes without reducing the benefits of error treatment The advantage of this technique is that if students are given adequate time, it will lead them to work out for themselves what is wrong, and to go some ways towards correcting it (Wang, 2010) With the coded feedback, students are required to both identify the type of error and self correct their own errors In other words, this technique enables students to become more autonomous in their language learning Nonetheless, according to Agosti (2006), one of the disadvantages of using coding technique is that there is sometimes disagreement among teachers of what should be included Moreover, some students cannot come up with the correct form and will not ask for it unless they are asked to resubmit their writing The teachers will then need to reformulate

2.2.4.3 Underlining (Uncoded correction)

Underlining technique is defined as an approach accompanied with no further treatment (Benthuysen, 2005) With this technique, the teacher only shows where the error is by underlining or circling the error Then, students are left to resolve the problem and correct the error (Bitchener & Knoch 2008; Halimi, 2008) This technique appears effective for students of average and high levels of proficiency The reason is that it compels students to engage in guided learning and problem solving In other words, students must be able to recognize the category of errors and then figure out the correct forms by themselves Additionally, the underlining approach may take

less teacher time (Chandler, 2003) The teachers do not need to provide all the correct forms for students’ written errors as they do in reformulation However, this technique

is sometimes confusing (Liu, 2008) Students may make wrong guesses about their errors Especially, this technique seems ineffective for students of low proficiency levels who need more detailed feedback so that they can build up their knowledge of the target language

In brief, the three techniques are recommended as commonly used approaches for error feedback in both ESL and EFL writing classrooms Although each technique has its own strong and weak points, each of them has brought to the writing classroom different effectiveness depending on the aim of giving feedback in students’ written work and on the proficiency level of learners

2.3 Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback

2.3.1 Teachers’ beliefs

Kagan (1992, cited in Vásquez & Harvey, 2010: 422) describes teacher beliefs as the “…tacit, often unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms, and the academic material to be taught” With regard to error feedback, teachers’ beliefs towards error and error feedback throughout the history of language teaching have been vacillating from one position to another

Specifically, when audio-lingualism dominated foreign language methodologies during the 1950s and well into the 1960s, error was regarded as “sin” to be avoided and teachers should correct all errors immediately Since the late 1960s, however, the trend has been changed from audio-lingualism to cognitive learning As a result, the pedagogical focus has been shifted from preventing errors to a different point of view being made obvious that learners can learn from their errors (Biao, 2010)

From the outlook of error as something negative which should be avoided, the traditional type of error feedback applied regularly was the overt correction of surface errors in the belief that students would recognize their errors and not repeat them Nevertheless, Williams (2003) argued that having students merely copy teacher correction is a passive action that does not teach students how to identify or correct errors on their own because the vast majority of students do not record nor study the mistakes noted in the feedback Hence, some teachers believed that students should be given a chance and trained to correct their own errors In fact,

self–correction will focus students’ attention on the errors and reduce reliance on the teacher, thus encouraging student autonomy (Ancker, 2000 cited in Kavaliauskiene, 2003)

2.3.2 Students’ beliefs

Students bring to the classroom very specific assumptions about how to learn a language and about what kinds of activities and approaches they believe to be useful For instance, the best way to learn a language is to mix with native speakers

of the language or it is not useful to try and remember grammar rules (Richards, 1996) Therefore, learners’ belief systems cover a wide range of issues and can influence learners’ motivation to learn, their expectations about language learning, their perceptions about what is easy or difficult about a language and the kinds of strategies they favor Assessing beliefs that language learners bring to the classroom

is important as beliefs are predispositions to action (Rokeach, 1968 cited in Tok, 2010)

In the field of error feedback, just like teachers, most students like error feedback and prefer to be corrected every error They believe that they can benefit from it due

to teachers’ provision of correct forms Some research has shown that students want error feedback and think it helps them improve their writing skills in the target language (Agosti, 2006; Lee, 2005) Similarly, in a study on ESL students writers, Leki (1991) found that 100 per cent of students wanted all their written errors corrected In support of Leki’s survey, Lee’s study (2004) revealed that teachers and students preferred comprehensive error feedback and that students were reliant on teachers in error correction However, although most students placed a high premium on accuracy in writing and wanted to have all their errors corrected by the teacher, some students believe that indirect error feedback helps them learn more from self-correction where they are given clues and also a more active role to play in the feedback process (Chandler, 2003)

Obviously, both teachers and students hold different beliefs about error feedback These differences indeed have a vital impact on teachers and learners because as stated in Richards (1996), teachers’ belief systems influence how they go about teaching while learners’ belief systems affect how they conceptualize learning and the way they interpret learning within the classroom context For this reason, having

a firm understanding of students’ beliefs is substantial for the importance of teaching and students’ learning and achievement (Wang, 2010)

2.3.3 Some studies on the discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback

Gardner and Miller (1999) state that while teachers’ beliefs influence the learning environment, the learners’ beliefs are important as they have a strong effect on the way they learn For example, if students prefer and believe that one kind of written error feedback is more useful, then they may be more likely to pay much attention to the correction and use it for learning than if they do not believe in its effects (Amrhein

& Nassaji, 2010) Thus, being aware of these preferences and attitudes is significant Regarding to the issue of the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs in language learning, there have been several studies investigating the discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback in writing classrooms Four of them are research of Diab (2006), Halimi (2008), Wang (2010), Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) All of these mainly utilized written questionnaires and compared students’ and teachers’ answers to the questionnaire items

The first study is the one conducted by Diab (2006) This study examined and compared the preferences for error correction and paper-marking techniques of EFL university instructors with those of their students in American University of Beirut A four- part questionnaire based on Leki’s survey of ESL students’ preferences for Error Correction (1991), which was adapted to include questionnaire items for both first and final drafts was administered to participants The analysis of teachers’ and students’ responses revealed various discrepancies between instructors’ and students’ preferences for error correction and paper-marking techniques, as well as differences

in beliefs among instructors themselves

The second research is one carried out by Halimi (2008) The survey investigated

Indonesian teachers’ and students’ preferences for error correction by using questionnaires based on Diab’s study (2006), which were adapted to focus on surface-level error correction The researcher reported that there were diverse discrepancies between teachers’ and students’ views regarding when to provide error correction, attention given to teachers’ correction, preference for error correction technique, how much correction to provide, and how a teacher should correct errors However, both

students and teachers agreed that accuracy was very important and they were in support of the use of coding technique for error correction

The third study is the one of Wang’s (2010) research which concentrated on exploring the discrepancies between teacher practice and students preferences in written error correction A questionnaire and an interview were used to gather data mainly from teachers and students in Chinese universities The result indicated that the teachers and students shared certain common ground in regarding the importance

of written error correction and the accuracy in compositions Nonetheless, there also existed discrepancies to their views on the techniques of error correction

The last research is a survey conducted by Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) The research focused on examining and comparing how ESL students and teachers perceive the usefulness of different types, the amount of written corrective feedback, and also the reasons they have for their preferences Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 31 ESL teachers and 33 ESL students by means of written questionnaires The result showed that while there were some areas of agreement between teachers and students, important discrepancies in their opinions did occur, not only in how written corrective feedback should be provided but also why

Apparently, there are immense differences between students’ and teachers’ beliefs on error feedback The discrepancies found in these studies raise the question of what teachers and students believe in committing errors, whether students should be corrected, what to be corrected and how to provide error feedback These differences could create some tension as well as challenges in error correction pedagogy In addition, Diab (2006) and Halimi (2008) note that discrepancies about corrective feedback may cause miscommunication and result in unsuccessful teaching and learning Therefore, it is especially important to continue to explore this area of research Furthermore, relatively few studies have been carried out among high–school teachers and students From these perspectives, the present study aims at finding out whether teachers and students in high-school hold different or similar beliefs about error feedback It is hoped that the information from this study will be of pedagogic importance to EFL teachers about how they should treat their students’ written errors

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter will present the methodology of the research including (1) the research design, (2) the participants, (3) the research instruments, (4) the data collection procedures

3.1 Research design

An investigation towards teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback is highly theoretical, which is hard to conduct an experimental survey Thus, this research is a descriptive-survey in which quantitative data were collected through the use of questionnaires to explore the discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about issues of error feedback

3.2 Participants

The participants in this study were divided into two groups The teacher group involved 10 EFL teachers of Vo Van Kiet high school in Vinh Long province They have EFL teaching experience ranging from five to twenty years The student group consisted of 96 EFL students in grade 11 at Vo Van Kiet high school They have learnt English for six years The approach of the sample selection for the study was nonprobability sampling The convenience-sampling was chosen as the main type for the research because participants were readily available to participate in the survey In addition, it was easy for the researcher to contact the participants

3.3 Instruments

Beliefs are not observable; hence, to compare teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback, parallel questionnaires were constructed with two versions (one version for teachers and the other for students) The quantitative data were gathered through structured questions using a five-point Likert-scale type (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) Each version of the questionnaire delivered to the participants comprised twenty-questionnaire items translated into Vietnamese to make sure that all of them could understand and complete the questionnaires correctly All the questionnaire items in the questionnaire were based on items from questionnaires used in previous studies that examined similar research issues (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Diab, 2006; Halimi, 2008), which

increased the validity of the research tool However, these questionnaire items were adapted to get along with the literature review for the purpose of the present research The questionnaire included a covering letter from the researcher to get the willingness

of the participants responding accurately and conscientiously to the survey questionnaires Furthermore, the participants’ confidentiality and anonymity were also guaranteed in this letter The letter was then followed by the four parts of the questionnaire as can be seen in Appendices 1,2,3 and 4

The first part of the questionnaire (part A) was demographic characteristics This part covered the participants’ personal information such as age, class, gender for students, and teaching experience, gender for teachers

The next three parts were composed of 20 items related to issues of error feedback These items were categorized into six clusters as shown in Table 1 below

Table 1: Clusters of questionnaire items

Cluster 1: Beliefs about committing errors 1, 2, 3, and 4

B Cluster 2: Beliefs about significance of error

The third part of the questionnaire (part C) consisted of ten items adapted from Amrhein and Nassaji’s study (2010) These items were also constructed in the form of

a five-point Likert scale to investigate teachers’ and students’ beliefs about types of errors to be corrected and degree of supplying the correction

The last part (part D) with four questions adapted from Halimi (2008) focused on teachers’ and students’ beliefs about techniques employed for error feedback

3.4 Research procedures

Before the questionnaires were administered in the main study, a pilot survey was conducted with 47 students in grade 11 The questionnaire had a Conbrach alpha of 663 Therefore, this data collection instrument was quite acceptable (George & Mallery, 2003; Nunnaly, 1978 )

In the pilot survey, seven students returned the questionnaires with missing items without answers in part C (Appendix 2) because of the confusing format of the pilot-questionnaire For this reason, some changes were made for the items in part C both in wording and formatting so that all items in the questionnaire have the same format of answering (putting a tick) Significantly, none of the data collected in the pilot study was utilized in the present research

The final Vietnamese version of “learner questionnaire” was administered to 96 students, which took them approximately fifteen minutes to complete Before answering the questionnaire, they were told the purpose of the study, and given details

of how to respond to the questionnaire In addition, all items in the last part of the questionnaire were explained in Vietnamese with the examples to make students comprehend the techniques used for error feedback in order that they could finish the questionnaire completely

The final Vietnamese version of “teacher questionnaire” was also delivered to 10 EFL instructors at Vo Van Kiet high school at the same time as the “learner questionnaire” However, it was collected a week after the delivery thanks to the help of an EFL teacher at Vo Van Kiet high school

Finally, the data gained from questionnaires were subjected to SPSS program so as to find out any discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about (1) committing errors and the importance of giving error feedback, (2) what errors to be corrected and the degree of providing correction, (3) what techniques to be used for error feedback

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter reports the results of the study, and then followed by discussions on the results

4.1 Results of the study

With regard to the topic of error feedback, the teachers and students do share certain common ground, but there also exist discrepancies to their views Accordingly, the following results will proceed from two respects after mean scores for all questionnaire items were computed and all data tabulated The reliability analysis of the questionnaire through the SPSS program produced an alpha of 668 This result implied that the questionnaires were fairly reliable to conduct Correlation between teacher and learner questionnaires via Pearson was not done because of the unequal number of learner and teacher questionnaires collected

4.1.1 Common teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error feedback

To explore the common beliefs of teachers and learners about error feedback, descriptive statistics for both teachers’ and students’ responses to the questionnaires were calculated through each cluster of the statements The mean scores and the standard deviations of their beliefs were presented in Table 2

Table 2: Descriptive statistics on common beliefs of students and teachers

about error feedback

- significance of error feedback 96 4.32 649 10 4.80 349

- correcting content errors 96 3.89 703 10 3.50 1.247

- focusing on repeated errors 96 2.71 1.123 10 2.30 1.567

- techniques used for error feedback: 96 3.79 475 10 3.83 392 + the use of reformulation 96 4.48 754 10 3.40 1.265

+ the use of general correction 96 4.52 781 10 4.80 632

Notes: N: total of participants M: mean S.D: Standard Deviation

Furthermore, the percentage of teachers’ and students’ agreement with issues of error feedback was shown in Figure 1 below

Figure 1: Percentage of teachers’ and students’ agreement with issues of error

feedback

As can be seen from Table 2, the first shared view is found among all subjects to the committing errors Both teachers and learners seemed to be in agreement regarding accuracy in students’ paper Actually, they thought that not committing errors in writing is a good thing (M = 3.70 and M = 3.48, respectively)

The second common view which can be observed from Table 2 and Figure 1 is about the importance of giving error feedback All of the teachers surveyed completely agreed that giving error feedback is important to both teachers and learners (M = 4.80) Similarly, nearly 85% of the students supported the significance of error feedback with the high mean scores of 4.42

For beliefs about the kinds of errors to be corrected, the teachers and the students agreed with the focus on correcting content errors; however, the students seemed to form stronger beliefs (M = 3.50 and M = 3.89, respectively) Thus, the results demonstrated that both teachers and learners had positive beliefs about the importance

of correcting content errors

In terms of the degree to provide correction, only 30% of the teachers and nearly 25%

of the students thought that teachers should always correct repeated errors

Percentage of teachers' and students' agreement with issues

Correcting content errors

Focus on repeated errors

Use of reformulation, coding, and general correction

Students Teachers

Another common view is outlined in items 17, 19, and 20 in part D of Appendix 1 and Appendix 3, which surveyed beliefs about techniques used for error feedback Both teachers and learners were in accord with the use of reformulation, coding, and general correction in correcting students’ written work with the very high scores of 4.23 for teachers, and 4.03 for students

In general, there were likely to be common grounds in teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback Nonetheless, the similarities found between their views do not cover all aspects in the research This means that there still existed mismatches between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback To explore these discrepancies, the second respect from the result will be taken into account in the following part

4.1.2 Discrepancies between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback

In contrast to the common grounds shared by teachers and students, there were some mismatches between their views In order to show the discrepancies in teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about error feedback, the mean scores and the standard deviation were calculated for each cluster of the statements The results were represented in

- degree of providing error feedback:

+ focus on global errors, but not local ones

+ focus on errors related to the target language

- techniques used for error feedback: