10th grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities at Do Son Boarding High School, Hai Phong

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Students’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning Table 2: Students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction Table 3: Stude

ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ

ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES

AT DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT

NỘI TRÚ ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI

CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 601410

HANOI - 2011

ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ

ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES

AT DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT NỘI TRÚ ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI

CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 601410

Supervisor : Khoa Anh Việt, M.A

HANOI - 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the Study 1

2 Aims of the Study 2

3 Scope of the Study 2

4 Research Questions 2

5 Methods of the Study 3

6 Significance of the Study 3

7 Design of the Study 3

8 Summary 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1 Definition of “Error” 5

2 Types of Errors 6

3 Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake” 7

4 Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction 8

4.1 Perspectives on Errors 8

4.2 Perspectives on Error Correction 9

5 The Role of Oral Error Correction 10

6 Techniques of Oral Error Correction 12

6.1 Explicit Correction 12

6.2 Recasts 12

6.3 Prompts 13

6.3.1 Clarification Requests 13

6.3.2 Elicitation 13

6.3.3 Metalinguistic Clues 13

6.3.4 Repetition 13

6.3.5 Finger-counting 14

6.3.6 Facial Expression 14

6.3.7 Gestures 14

6.4 Delayed Correction 14

7 Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction 15

8 Summary 17

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 18

II.1 Methodology 18

II.1.1 Context of the Study 18

II.1.2 Research Questions 19

II.1.3 Subjects of the Study 19

II.1.4 Data Collection Instruments 20

II.1.5 Data Collection Procedure 21

II.2 Findings and Discussion 21

II.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction 21

II.2.2 Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral error correction: 23

II.2.3 Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors: 25

II.2.3.1 Preferred types of errors to be corrected 25

II.2.3.2 Preferred timing of error correction 27

II.2.3.3 Preferred techniques of error correction 27

II.2.3.4 Preferred forms of error correction 30

II.3 Summary 31

PART C: CONCLUSION 32

1 Summary of the Findings 32

2 Recommendations for Teachers’ Error Correction in Oral Classroom Activities 33

2.1 Knowing about the Students 33

2.2 Working out Appropriate Error Correction Strategies 34

2.3 Creating a Supportive and Pleasant Classroom Environment 36

3 Limitations of the Study 36

4 Recommendations for Further Research 36

REFERENCES 38 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE I APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IX APPENDIX 3: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION NOTES X

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

L2: Second Language

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TESOL: Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Students’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning

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

Table 3: Students’ level of understanding of teachers’ oral error correction

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’ preferences for amount of error to be corrected Table 7: Students’ preferences for timing of error correction

Table 8: Students’ preferences for error correction techniques

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

Table 10: Students’ preferences for error correction 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 issues which has constantly attracted great concern and discussion among many linguists, educational researchers and teachers is the

correction of learners’ errors

It has been widely accepted that error making is inevitable and it appears essential

to the language learning process The correction of learners’ errors has also been recognized as an integral part of language teaching So far, a number of studies have been conducted to seek for effective methods of correcting learners’ errors with the aim of fostering more successful language learning The research findings have revealed that learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards instructional methods have a great influence on their achievement (Schulz’s, 1996, 2001) Teachers need to know learners’ beliefs about language teaching and learning because a mismatch between students’ expectations and the realities they encounter in the classroom can prevent improvement in language acquisition (Horwitz, 1988)

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

as a result, it has brought about unsatisfactory learning outcomes This problem is not an exception in the context of Do Son Boarding High School where I have been working as a teacher of English From my professional experience and personal observation, I have realized that the teachers seem not to have paid much attention to what their students think and feel about oral error correction, whereas the students come to class with a variety of beliefs, learning 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 factors have been proved to affect students’ progress in language learning in general and in speaking English in particular

Rooted from the problem existing in my context and the awareness of the significance of oral error correction as well as the need for teachers to learn about their students’ perceptions and preferences for error treatment, I would like to conduct an

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

classroom oral activities at Do Son Boarding High School, Hai Phong” The fact that there

has been limited research into this subject matter in the context of Vietnam has also inspired me to carry out this study It is hoped that the research outcomes will be able to assist teachers to gain more insights into the issues of oral error correction so that they can adjust or adopt appropriate methods catering for students’ needs with the aim of improving language learning

2 Aims of the Study

The specific aims of the study are:

• to find out what students think about the correction of oral errors delivered by their teachers such as whether they like their errors to be corrected, and how important they think teachers’ error correction to their learning of English

• to 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 teachers’ 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 that teachers can make best use of their methods

to enhance language learning

3 Scope of the Study

It is clear that oral error 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 10th grade students at Do Son Boarding High

School in Hai Phong city

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

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

5 Methods of the Study

In order to seek for answers to the research questions, various sources of data 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 error correction, how they evaluate the current practices of teachers’ error correction, 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 confirms comments made by the students in the questionnaire

Semi-structured interviews with a small group of students were added to the instruments 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 EFL teachers and students due to the mismatch between teachers’ 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’ beliefs and their influence on the language teaching and learning

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

7 Design of the Study

The thesis contains three main parts as follows:

• Part A provides an introduction of the study including the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the study organization

• Part B consists of two chapters Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background for the thesis including definitions and classifications of error; distinction between the notions of

“error” and “mistake”; major perspectives on the role of errors and error correction in general and of oral error correction in particular; common techniques of oral error correction; and review of previous studies on students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ oral error correction Chapter 2 describes the methodology underlying the research including the background information about the context and subjects of the study, the instruments used to collect the data, the procedure of data collection, and detailed description of data analysis and discussion of the study results

• Part C presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical suggestions for teachers delivering error correction in classroom oral activities The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this part

8 Summary

This chapter presents 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 “error” and “mistake” Besides, major perspectives on the place of errors and error correction in general and of oral error correction in particular are discussed The following are description and illustration of some common correction techniques Finally, the chapter critically reviews previous studies on students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ oral error correction

1 Definition of “Error”

There have been different definitions of “error” in language learning It is typically defined as a deviation from a standard form of the language Hendrickson (1978:387) views error as “an utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in reading discourse” According to Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1982:183), errors are seen as “the flawed side of learner speech or writing … that deviate from some selected norm or mature language performance” Norish’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” aspect of the

“errors” from a given “standard” of the language presents some problem Allwright and Bailey (1991) explain that the target language model at which the EFL learners are aiming may not be the native speaker norm for the teaching is mostly done by non-native speaking teachers Even L2 learners 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 correctness As discussed by Quirk et al (1985, cited in Mishra 2005:38), the problem

“loses 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 what an error is In the light of the communicative approach the learners’ communicative success is considered a fit criterion to decide on errors That is, errors only occur if they block communication If communication is possible despite a few slips and

mistakes which may be viewed as errors from syntactic point of view, it will be considered that there is no error in the expression (Mishra, 2005)

Defining error is generally a complicated matter facing linguists, researchers and teachers As concluded by Chaudron (1986b:69), “the determination of errors is clearly a difficult process that depends on the immediate context of the utterance in question as well

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”

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

Errors are also categorized on the basis of language components such as phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic, lexical and stylistic errors

Under the CLT point of view which considers errors as those which block communication, Burt and Kiparsky (1972) distinguish between “global” and “local" errors 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 complexification of errors in the language classroom is necessary for understanding the diverse universe of error possibilities in any given language context In

other words, to compare error correction types without consideration of error feature differences may completely distort the reality of how error correction functions in classroom contexts

3 Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake”

There are ways for teachers to distinguish between the terms “error” and “mistake”

in spite of the fact that it is quite difficult to signify a clear differentiation

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

to the error of competence which 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 lapses, physical states such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion” The errors of competence are considered systematic while the errors of performance unsystematic Corder asserts that mistakes are not important to the language learning process and they can be self-corrected by the learners with almost absolute assurance Whereas, errors are hardly amended by the learners themselves and it is therefore necessary for the teacher to help the learners reconstruct their incomplete knowledge of the language

Edge (1989) and Ellis (1997) make a somewhat similar distinction between errors and mistakes: if a learner is able to correct his own utterance, then he has made a mistake;

if he cannot correct it in his own English but the teacher thinks that the class is familiar with the correct form, he has made an error Brown (2000) also adopts the term “mistake”

to refer to a performance error made by language learners while producing a known structure incorrectly through a slip of tongue or an unsystematic guess Mistakes due to such performance lapses do not mean incompetence but some sort of flaw in the process of producing speech and thus they can be self-corrected

Mistakes should be carefully distinguished from errors of a second language learner Nevertheless, it may not always be an easy task 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 learners have the competence to correct the errors However, when there is no self-correction, mistakes or errors cannot be identified

4 Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction

There are basically two different viewpoints on learners’ errors in the fields of second and foreign language learning On the one hand, errors are considered undesirable and a sign of failure either on the learner’s or the teacher’s part and therefore to be 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 thoughts, the correction of errors is also viewed differently Some believe that error correction can be effective and beneficial to language learning The others, however, cast doubts on the role

of error correction: whether it helps language learners improve their learning In this section, a presentation of major views on errors and error correction from the perspectives

of pedagogy and L2 acquisition theories will be made

4.1 Perspectives on Errors

In many traditional language classes errors are regarded negatively and have to be eradicated They are considered to cause loss of respect for both teachers and learners and making too many errors is severely disapproved (Norrish, 1983) The errors are believed

to be the fault 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 other learners 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 error made by learners is considered not evidence of failure to learn but an essential and integral part of learning a language (Norish, 1983; Davis & Pearse, 2000; Dulay & Burt, 1974, cited in Zhu, 2010) Generally, errors are believed to be unavoidable yet indicator of the progress in language learning Making errors indicates that learners are actively participating in the language learning process (Islam, 2007) An error, according to Yule (1997, cited in Islam, 2007:7), “is not something which hinders a learner’s progress, but is probably a clue to the active learning progress behind made by a learner as he or she tries out ways of communicating in the new language” Also, errors indicate learners’ stage which reflects parts of the lesson that have been understood and to be improved (Hedge, 2000) As stated by Corder (1981 cited in Richards 1974), a learner’s errors are significant in three different ways Firstly, they show the teacher whether he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far the learner has progressed

and reached the goal and, accordingly, what remains for him to learn Secondly, they provide the researchers with evidence of how language is learnt and acquired, what strategies or methods the learner is employing in his discovery of the language Thirdly, they are essential to the learner himself since error making is regarded as an instrument the learner uses to learn the language and to test his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning

There has been a change in the attitude to errors from strictly negative to more reasonably positive Errors are no longer viewed as having damaging effect on the students’ interest to learn the language but an integral part of their learning process This positive and tolerant attitude towards errors has also affected the perspectives on the correction of errors which will be discussed in the following section

4.2 Perspectives on Error Correction

Attitudes towards the correction of learners’ errors have also been a source of debate among many foreign and second language scholars, researchers and teachers

The debate of error correction has emerged from 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 shorten 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 to achieve a perfect teaching method the errors would never be committed 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 would help students be aware of their errors and not repeat them Some researchers are more concerned with teacher correcting learners’ errors in order to prevent fossilization In their viewpoints, errors have to be dealt with or otherwise can fossilize and teacher correction is the way to 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 error correction has no use and may even have a harmful effect on language development He explains that anxiety associated with error correction can raise a learner’s affective filter, which impedes fluency in the L2 In sharing this view, Terrel (1977) points

out that affective rather than cognitive factors are of primary concern in the language classroom, and the correction of learners’ errors is negative in terms of motivation, attitudes, and embarrassment Generally, error corrections are considered “a serious mistake” that can do more harm than good because they affect learners in a negative way and they could result in learners avoiding difficult constructions for fear of making mistakes 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, ineffective and even counterproductive

Among the debates for and against error correction in the extreme is a preference for selective correction of errors In this perspective, error correction can be effective and quite beneficial to language learning provided that it is done in an appropriate manner Nunan (1989) asserts that one of the functions of the teachers in the classroom is to correct learners’ errors However, it is essential to note that correcting all the errors that learners make is impossible When they are overcorrected they may become discouraged and confused, which would probably put an end to communication Ur (1996) also affirms that

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

of Hendrickson’s (1978) research, learners do not like to be corrected for each minor error they made because this practice destroys their confidence to use the target language The teacher must therefore be sensitive and not correct the learner too much, as this can take the attention 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 great deal of discussion Despite its controversy, there appears to be a growing consensus among the majority of researchers and language practitioners that error 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 correction for the sake of more beneficial learning

5 The Role of Oral Error Correction

When it comes to error correction it specifies correcting both oral and written errors This study, however, is particularly concerned with the correction of oral errors

Oral errors, as described in Lennon’s (1991:72) “occur where the speaking fails to follow the pattern or manner of speech of educated people in English speaking countries” Over the past few decades, the correction of oral errors in second and foreign language learning has been explored in many studies Since Chaudron’s (1977) influential descriptive research on oral error correction, investigations into corrective feedback have played an important role in both theory-construction and pedagogy More recently, Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study of oral error correction in the context of immersion classrooms has strongly influenced later developments of the matter It has provided the basis for more comprehensive and systematic research into oral error correction 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 become a controversial issue among many linguists, researchers and language practitioners Some researchers imply that teachers should not correct students’ spoken errors Truscott (1999), for example, provides an in-depth investigation against delivering oral error correction on grammar He mentions some obstacles facing teachers and learners in giving and receiving effective oral error correction, including the ability to identify the error without ambiguity, to evaluate the intended meaning correctly, and to deal with the error within the context in an appropriate way The supporters of this debate include Allwright (1975), Fanselow (1977), and Hendrickson (1978) However, Lyster, Lightbown, and Spada’s (1999) disapprove of Truscott’s argument They claim strong support for the provision of oral error correction and consistently report a desire for it A number of recent studies have also demonstrated the positive effect of oral error correction They have shown that the correction of oral errors can contribute to L2 language acquisition (Sheen, 2010)

Oral error correction in ESL and EFL classrooms is regarded as an instrument 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 better results The effectiveness of that instrument, however, depends on the approaches to language teaching Traditionally, errors have been considered negative, yet this view has changed since a communicative approach was adopted The shift has been from a form-focused teaching approach, which puts more emphasis on correctness regarding pronunciation and grammar, to meaning-focused approach, which pays more attention to vocabulary and meaning and tolerates more mistakes and errors Both approaches are

significant to English language teaching and therefore need an even distribution It is of

great importance that the teacher is aware of when form-focused instruction is appropriate 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 errors in normal communication often happen even when people are speaking in their mother tongue The place of oral error correction in the classroom depends on what is considered the main objective of the target language learning that teachers expect their students to achieve

6 Techniques of Oral Error Correction

There are different ways of delivering error correction in language classrooms This study utilizes three major types of error correction suggested by Lyster and Mori (2006): explicit correction, recasts, and prompts Explicit and recasts supply learners with target reformulations of their non-target output Prompts, on the other hand, include a variety of signals other than alternative reformulations that push learners to self-repair (e.g elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests and repetition) Such techniques as using gestures and facial expression proposed by Edge (1989) and Mumford and Darn (2005) are also included in this classification Following are further description and illustration of these error correction types which can be applied for the correction of oral errors in language classrooms

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

incorrect and then provides the correct form using such terms as “I’m sorry … is wrong /

You shouldn’t say … / You should say … / We don’t say … / We (can) say … / Pay attention to … / There is a mistake in …”

T: I’m sorry, “go” is wrong You should say “went”

6.2 Recasts: The teacher does not directly point out that the students’ utterance was

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

T: A history /'hɪstri/ lesson

6.3 Prompts

6.3.1 Clarification Requests: The teacher indicates that the student’s utterance has been

misunderstood or contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or reformulation is

required A clarification request includes such phrases as “Pardon? / I don’t understand …

/ What do you mean by …?”

S: Fourteen a week

T: Fourteen what?

6.3.2 Elicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking

questions (e.g “How do we say that in English?”), by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s utterance, or by asking the student to reformulate his or her utterance (e.g “Please say that again.”)

S: I like cartoons and …er … amusing …er…

T: So an amusing film, we’ll call that a …?

T: You find horror films really ….?

6.3.3 Metalinguistic Clues: The teacher poses questions (e.g “Do we say it like that?”) or

provides information related to the formation of the student’s utterance

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

“more”

6.3.4 Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error and changes intonation to draw

student’s attention to it

T: Listen?

Sharing the techniques for correcting oral errors, Edge (1989) and Mumford and Darn (2005) suggest some other types of prompts namely finger-counting, expression and

gestures These techniques help students realize their errors and get a chance for correction

self-6.3.5 Finger-counting: This technique can be used when a sound, a syllable in a word or

a word in a sentence is missing

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 uses 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 turning face to the side and frowning

6.3.7 Gestures: The teacher shows the student where the error is by using gestures with

his head (e.g shaking head, turning head or pulling ear as if he did not hear quite properly) Also, the teacher can create his own correction symbols with hands and fingers (e.g crossing hands over to show wrong order, making a scissors motion with fingers to cut out unnecessary words, using a circling hand motion to prompt continuous, holding thumb and forefinger close together to show a small 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 words

6.4 Delayed Correction

As suggested by Edge (1989), it is important for some of the time that students are not corrected but simply encouraged She explains that students need the experience of uninterrupted and meaningful communication when they are trying to use the language in real 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 errors, he is advised to take note of them If there are common errors, the teacher can write them on the board after the activity and ask for correction from the class In case teacher hears a lot of

errors in important 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 for correcting oral errors can boost student motivation, build confidence, and create a satisfying learning experience However, the nature of such

an oral error correction strategy remains unclear and even controversial In order to make best use of the error correction techniques, teachers should take many factors into great consideration, especially those related to the learners such as their needs, language proficiency and learning attitudes

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

It is obvious that individual students differ from each other in their attitudes towards errors and error correction The differences are proved to have great impact on the effectiveness of teachers’ error correction strategies Thus, being aware of students’ attitudes and expectations will help teachers to choose the appropriate ways of error

correction and to make 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; Park, 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 language students, 92 U.S foreign 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 learners’ perceptions affect their language development The researchers found that learners were generally accurate about their perceptions of phonological and lexical correction; however, learners’ perceptions of morphosyntactic correction were usually confused with correction about semantics or lexis

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

learners want more error correction Schulz argues that “such lack of pedagogical face validity could affect learners’ motivation” (p.349) Teachers, therefore, need to explore their students’ perceptions and expectations to close the gap and maximize the effects of teaching

Noticeably, Ancker’s (2000) action research into teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards error correction in 15 countries also found a big gap between the teachers and students For example, when being asked whether teachers should correct every error students make when using English, only 25% of teachers answered “yes” while 76% of students answered “yes.” The teachers explained that correction could have negative impact on students’ confidence and motivation, whereas the reason for students’ expectation was the importance of learning to speak English correctly Ancker suggests that teachers should establish clear objectives in lesson plans, discuss the learning process with students, and employ alternative types of correction that can be beneficial to students

to close the gap between teachers’ and learners’ expectations

Students’ expectations for error correction 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 unhelpful because it inhibits language production This result complied with the one from Salinki’s (2001) study in which 89 students participating in a survey say that they

do not like to be corrected while they are talking for fear of being nervous or lose their confidence However, students wished to be corrected by their teachers but in a more selective and explicit way with a focus on a smaller number Students expressed that teachers should devote more time to each correction, and they should also use more strategies and resources when correcting oral errors

One of the latest studies on learners’ preferences for error correction was carried out by Park (2010) with 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English speaking teachers in Northern 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 thought The students regarded immediate error correction that can interrupt the flow of conversation as effective 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 Elicitation, explicit feedback, and implicit correction were the most favored types of error correction 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 interest in the area of students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors.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 mainly 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 schools Thus, the present study is one attempt to add to the literature on this important topic

8 Summary

This chapter has presented a review of the literature relevant to the study through a critical synthesis of the related materials Specifically, the literature review illustrates essential perspectives on error correction and useful techniques of oral error correction in the classroom so that we can get more accurate insights and directions Also, the chapter 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, I have reviewed relevant literature to form the theoretical background for my study This chapter presents the methodology I chose for the

achievement of the aims of the study, the analysis of the data collected and the discussion

of the findings

II.1 Methodology

II.1.1 Context of the Study

The study was conducted at Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city The 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 from 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 at least five years of teaching experience Two out

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 research was carried out with the participation of 10th grade students Most of them come from the remote islands and rural areas around the city and they generally have rather poor educational standard They find learning English, especially speaking skill, really challenging

The English language teaching and learning in my school follow the national curriculum - just like many other schools around the country English is taught as a compulsory subject and, specifically, as one of the core subjects in the national examinations at the end of compulsory education The textbook and the syllabus for English are prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training The “Tieng Anh 10” course book is designed under the light of communicative approach in which students learn not only the primary aspects of language such as grammar, vocabulary and phonology but also engaging classroom activities through the 4 skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing

In reality, the teaching and learning of English in my school has not reached much satisfaction as required due to both internal and external factors Concerning the matter of English speaking in particular, the situation seems to be more problematic Although they have been learning English for at least four years, 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, large-sized classes, not well-equipped classrooms, and the neglect of speaking

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

Towards successful language teaching and learning, it is essential for the teachers

to investigate the issues concerned and find out effective solutions

II.1.2 Research Questions

As stated in the first part Introduction, this study was designed in an attempt to search for answers to the following questions:

1 What are the students’ perceptions of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error correction?

2 What are the students’ reactions to the current practices of their teachers’ oral error correction?

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

II.1.3 Subjects of the Study

The subjects in this study were 120 students both male and female from three classes of grade 10 in Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city Half 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 most incompetent students

The teacher participants consisted of two female teachers from the English group of

my school One teacher has been teaching English for 9 years and the other 5 years Both

of them voluntarily and enthusiastically participated in this study

There are reasons for my choice of 10th 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 11th or 12th grades and thus they are believed to have more interest in the issue investigated and invest more thoughts for it On the other hand, findings of the study are hoped to provide teachers with practical and useful recommendations as soon as possible for better teaching and learning in the forthcoming school years

II.1.4 Data Collection Instruments

In order to obtain data for the study, such instruments as survey questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and classroom observations were employed

The main instrument for collecting data in the study was the questionnaire It is considered the most popular method of data collection for its efficiency 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 times, yet comparable (McDonough, J & S., 1997) In order to achieve the purpose of the

study, I designed a questionnaire (Appendix 1) which comprised 10 questions of such types

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

It was translated into Vietnamese with the help of the two teacher participants and clearly instructed to ensure students’ understanding 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, hence more honest responses

The questionnaire is designed as follows:

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

Questions 3-4 deal with students’ reactions to their teacher’s actual practice of oral error correction

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

Interviewing is also a popular technique It has a potential for openness, giving room 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’ attitudes towards their teacher’s treatment of errors, I 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 richer interactions and more

personalized responses while remaining in control of the interviewer (Appendix 2)

The other supplementary instrument for data collection was classroom observations which were carried out in three classes of 10th grade during the study The main purpose of this instrument was to seek for more detailed information about what the teachers actually

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

II.1.5 Data Collection Procedure

In the first place, the questionnaires were pilot-tested with 20 student 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 understanding the questionnaire They also showed interest and willingness to take part in the study After the pilot testing, the questionnaires were delivered to 120 student participants of 10th grade in their classrooms The survey was conducted at the end of the class meeting periods of the three classes with the head teachers’ permission The students completed the questionnaire in about 30 minutes The data were then collected and analyzed both descriptively and interpretively

The next step was the conduction of semi-structured interviews 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 10th grade classes in several periods In each class observed, the researcher acted as a non-participant observer and took notes of the teacher’s instruction concerning frequency of delivering correction, the types of errors which were in focus of the teacher’s correction and the teacher’s employment of correction techniques

II.2 Findings and Discussion

The following results address the three research questions in the study

II.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction

Question 1 and 2 in the survey questionnaire aimed at exploring students’ awareness of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error correction in the EFL classrooms The collected data are summarized in the tables below

Respondents

(No)

Strongly Agree (%)

Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Disagree (%)

Strongly Disagree (%)

Necessary (%)

Fairly Necessary (%)

Unnecessary (%)

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

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

However, 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% It is a common belief among these students that errors indicate their failure in language learning and, unfortunately, degrade their learning progress in general and speaking ability in particular Thus, making errors is not helpful but unacceptable and must be avoided

Regarding students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction, the results presented in table 2 showed that no student denied the significance of teachers’ correction Seventy-five students (62.5%) emphasized that it was very necessary for teachers to deliver correction of students’ spoken errors The most common reason for this positive attitude was that it would help students improve language 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 better understanding and memorizing of the language and thus their speaking ability would be enhanced Some students added that error correction would help them not only speak English better but improve other language aspects and skills as well

II.2.2 Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral error correction:

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

Moderate Improvement (%)

Little Improvement (%)

No Improvement (%)

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 little clarity made up a higher percentage (64.2%) However, the students confessing that 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 “I don’t 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 corrected spoken errors, many students with limited language knowledge and ability found it rather difficult to comprehend the correction right away A related factor is students’ lack 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 comprehensibility Some students stated 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

or not clear enough Besides, a small number of students with high level of learning anxiety confessed that they were afraid of asking the teacher for re-correction so that they could get better understanding of their problem

As revealed in the classroom observation data, the most common correction technique adopted by both teachers was recast (i.e the teacher repeats the student’s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error) This method seemed

to bring little effectiveness to the students of low level as it sometimes caused a mismatch between teacher’s intention and student’s interpretation, especially when correcting grammatical and lexical errors As observed in class 10C where most of the students have low language proficiency, some errors were repeated during the oral activities for the students did not realize which errors they had made and how they had been corrected (e.g the error 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’ correction of oral errors 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 correction, yet with different degrees 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 moderately Only 14.1% of the students complained that they got little improvement and, fortunately, no one said that their speaking was not improved at all Obviously, teachers’ correction of spoken errors more or less facilitated students’ speaking skill despite the fact that it has not reached adequate success

In order to learn more about the students’ attitudes towards their teachers’ oral error correction in actual practices, ten students randomly selected for the interview was asked how they felt when being corrected by their teachers and whether they were satisfied with their teachers’ current correction strategies or not All of the students said that they did not mind being corrected and even felt good about that in spite of the fact, as confessed in the interview, that they made errors in speaking quite often However, only half of them said they were satisfied with their teachers’ correction of errors The students interviewed all emphasized the need for more explicit correction and more detailed explanation from their teachers

II.2.3 Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors:

Questions 5-10 in the questionnaire dealt with how students expected their errors to

be corrected regarding types of errors, timing of error correction, error correction

techniques and forms

II.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

Rank Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Content

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

1: most preferred – 4: least preferred

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 be 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

by the current teaching of the English language Throughout junior and senior high school,

English grammar is always regarded a very important component of the curriculum A

great deal of emphasis is put on grammar-oriented instruction with the aim of providing

students with good preparation for various kinds of tests and examinations which primarily

consist of grammatical items In this trend, students are required to have good knowledge

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

be reasonable to assume that the students’ priority for the correction of grammatical errors