Nghiên cứu các phương pháp sửa lỗi sai trong giảng dạy kỹ năng nói của giáo viên học viện quốc tế

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

The evolution of English language teaching has seen the emergence and adaptation of diverse pedagogical approaches, with certain methods dominating at different historical stages The Grammar Translation Method (GTM) was the earliest and most enduring approach, gaining prominence in the 19th century, followed by influential methods such as the Direct Method, Audio-Lingual Method, Total Physical Response (TPR), and the Natural Approach (Richards and Rodgers, 2014) Since the 1980s, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as a significant approach These methods vary in their perspectives on oral errors and the correction of such errors, with error correction being a major focus during the rise of the Grammar Translation Method in the 1950s and 1960s (Brooks, 1960).

58) stated, “like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected.” Later on, with the emergence of Audio lingual and Direct Method approaches, the critical view of errors became questioned Errors started to be seen as natural part of the learning process and fluency rather than accuracy is important in accordance with Communicative Language Teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2011) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) with a more error-tolerant attitude in language teaching believes the goal of instruction is the development of fluency and acceptable language use, which remains widely recognized by far

The introduction of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) into Vietnamese education has created complexities for teachers Although they embraced communicative theory, many educators struggled to translate their beliefs and understanding into effective practice (Pham, 2007) Despite a decade having passed, challenges in developing speaking skills remain prominent.

The ongoing debates on effective speaking instruction highlight the key differences between Vietnamese, primarily a monosyllabic language, and English, which features both monosyllabic and polysyllabic structures Understanding these linguistic distinctions is crucial for developing effective teaching strategies in language education.

Vietnamese students face significant challenges in learning English, leading to inevitable spoken errors While some teachers are critical of these mistakes, many underestimate the importance of error correction and often overlook students' spoken errors Providing corrective feedback in speaking classes demands immediate responses from teachers, influenced by various factors, including students' attitudes This raises the question of how to effectively address each oral error, a challenge for both educators and researchers Despite numerous studies on oral error correction, there remains a lack of satisfactory answers tailored to specific teaching contexts As Hyland and Hyland (2006) suggest, corrective feedback serves educational and social purposes and should be viewed within its context Therefore, this research aims to investigate the oral error correction techniques employed by teachers at the Academy of International Studies and to identify any differences in perspectives between teachers and students regarding error correction, ultimately offering insights for educators and researchers in the modern Vietnamese teaching landscape.

Aims of the study

This study aims to examine the error correction techniques employed by teachers in speaking lessons at the American International School, while also investigating the disparity between teachers' and students' perceptions of oral error correction and the techniques utilized by instructors.

3 provide the teachers with some implications in giving corrective feedback in their speaking lessons

The research aims at answering the TWO questions:

1 What are the error correction techniques (ECTs) applied by the teachers at the AIS in their speaking lessons?

2 Are there any discrepancies between teachers‟ and students‟ opinions towards spoken error correction and the ECTs used by their teachers?

Scope of the study

The study limits its scope within the English teaching context at the AIS with two teacher participants who are frequently appointed to teach speaking lessons and

During the research period, 56 Intermediate-level students specializing in international affairs participated in speaking classes at AIS The study primarily examines the oral error correction techniques employed by AIS teachers, drawing on the frameworks established by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Diane and Barbara (1998) This research aims to provide a general overview of the oral error correction methods utilized by teachers, rather than delving deeply into specific types of errors or lesson stages.

Significance of the study

Research on spoken error correction is limited compared to written error correction, prompting this study to explore effective strategies for AIS teachers in their speaking lessons The findings highlight the application of error correction techniques by teachers and reveal the perspectives of both teachers and students on this issue While the study reflects a specific case, its insights can be generalized to benefit teachers and researchers in public security school systems and similar educational contexts where English is taught.

Teachers encounter both students and in-service learners, with a speaking syllabus primarily designed for specific purposes Additionally, the findings can serve as a valuable reference for educators implementing error correction techniques in speaking lessons for intermediate-level students.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Teaching speaking skill

Evaluating learners' language competence often begins with their oral performance, making the mastery of speaking skills a top priority for language learners However, speaking is one of the most challenging skills to acquire due to its spontaneous nature, leaving speakers with limited time to formulate their thoughts This complexity also presents challenges for educators, who must continually adapt their teaching methodologies to align with evolving trends in speaking instruction.

During the peak of the Grammar Translation Method, Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) highlighted a strong focus on vocabulary and grammar, prioritizing reading and writing skills Classroom activities primarily centered on accuracy, utilizing drilling techniques and memory exercises to enhance speaking skills Consequently, accuracy and error correction played a crucial role in this method of language instruction.

The teaching of speaking skills has evolved to emphasize meaningful and practical communication, allowing learners to engage in both accuracy-based and fluency-based activities In this approach, error correction is more flexible, with a greater tolerance for mistakes during fluency practice Scholars like Hemmens (2011) and Cotter (2013) suggest that accuracy should be prioritized for beginners, while fluency development can follow as students enhance their vocabulary and grammar skills.

Regarding the content of teaching speaking, Nunan (2003) states that teachers should teach learners to:

1 Produce the English speech sounds and sound patterns

2 Use word and sentence stress, intonation patterns and the rhythm of the second language

3 Select appropriate words and sentences according to the proper social setting, audience, situation and subject matter

4 Organize their thoughts in a meaningful and logical sequence

5 Use language as a means of expressing values and judgments

6 Use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which is called as fluency

Effective speaking courses must address multiple goals through comprehensive error correction, focusing on speaking content, pronunciation, grammar, and word usage According to Jones (1996) and Burns (1998), speaking serves three distinct functions: interaction, transaction, and performance Each of these functions varies in form and requires tailored teaching approaches to enhance learners' speaking skills effectively.

Errors

The concept of "error" in language learning has evolved over time, with varying definitions from linguists George (1972) described an error as an "unwanted form" that does not align with a teacher's or course designer's expectations, a subjective view lacking linguistic criteria In contrast, Corder (1974) defined errors as deviations resulting from a learner's lack of knowledge about correct language rules Delisle (1982) further emphasized the communicative aspect, defining errors as "a failure to communicate," suggesting that even grammatically incorrect utterances can be acceptable if they convey the intended message Richards et al highlighted that errors are identified based on grammatical rules and the usage accepted by fluent or native speakers.

In the study of language, the distinction between "errors" and "mistakes" has sparked considerable debate (Corder, 1967), along with the differentiation between "global" and "local errors" (Burt and Kiparsky, 1974) A widely recognized definition is that a mistake arises from carelessness, often referred to as a "performance error" (Chomsky, 1965) Hendrickson (1978) argues that global errors do not necessarily require correction, as they are generally accepted as valid This perspective suggests that mistakes should not be overly emphasized in the learning process, as even native speakers can make slips of the tongue (Corder, 1975).

This research adopts George's (1972, p.2) definition of an unwanted form as one that a course designer or teacher specifically does not desire, highlighting the crucial role of educators in addressing and correcting errors.

Error correction

Error correction is viewed from various perspectives, each reflecting the author's stance on how to address mistakes Chaudron (1986) defines correction as any teacher response that alters a student's behavior or utterance Edge (1989) emphasizes that correction is not solely about achieving absolute accuracy but rather about aiding learners in expressing themselves more effectively According to Richards and Lockhart (1996), oral error correction involves responding to either the content or the form of a student's utterance In this study, terms such as error treatment, corrective feedback, and error correction are used interchangeably, referring to teachers' reactions when errors occur.

“ignoring the error completely, giving the correct response by the teacher, or eliciting the correct response from either the error maker or the whole class” (Mosbah, 2007)

Most of the researchers working on error correction area have heard of the famous framework given by Hendrickson (1978) (as cited in Hinkel, E (2011)) in

8 one of the first comprehensive reviews of the issue of error correction in the classroom; that is,

1 Should learners‟ errors be corrected?

2 When should learners‟ errors be corrected?

3 Which errors should be corrected?

4 How should errors be corrected?

5 Who should do the correcting?

For over three decades, key questions regarding error correction in teaching contexts remain unresolved, with some inquiries attracting more attention than others A primary debate centers on whether errors should be corrected at all Research in this area often employs experimental designs that include pre- and post-tests, alongside explicit instruction targeting specific language features.

The debate on whether learners' errors should be corrected is polarized Truscott (1996) argues that correction does not significantly enhance writing accuracy and may even hinder the learning process, suggesting it has no place in writing classes In contrast, Ferris (1999, 2003) and Russell & Spada (2006) advocate for error correction, highlighting its positive impact on the acquisition process Supporting this perspective, researchers such as Lightbown and Spada (1990), Carroll et al (1992), Lyster and Ranta (1997), and Sheen (2011) emphasize the importance of corrective feedback in helping students recognize the correct forms This suggests that teachers' feedback plays a crucial role in fostering learners' awareness of language accuracy.

Errors in foreign language learning should be seen as evidence of a learner's positive contribution to their language acquisition, rather than a sign of their inability to master the new language, as many educators perceive Many language teachers acknowledge that mistakes are not only inevitable but also serve as indicators of progress in the learning process Embracing a positive perspective on errors can enhance the overall language learning experience.

Davis and Pearse (2000) assert that errors are a fundamental aspect of language learning, highlighting that they are not indicative of failure but rather signals of progress According to Hedge (2000), these errors reflect the learner's current understanding and identify areas that require improvement, underscoring the importance of mistakes in the learning process.

The timing of error correction in language learning is crucial and can be categorized into two approaches: immediate feedback and delayed feedback Immediate feedback involves teachers promptly addressing errors as they occur, helping learners recognize and correct their mistakes in real-time In contrast, delayed feedback allows teachers to withhold corrections until after the communicative event has concluded, enabling learners to focus on the interaction without interruption Understanding when to implement these strategies can significantly enhance the learning experience.

Despite extensive research on corrective feedback over the past decade, many questions remain unresolved Lyster and Mori's (2006) Counterbalance Hypothesis offers one of the most promising insights into these unanswered issues.

Effective error correction in the classroom is influenced by the instructional setting and discourse context, as researchers emphasize Teachers must consider various factors, including lesson objectives, learners' attitudes and expectations, motivation, and proficiency levels when addressing oral errors As noted by Jim Scrivener, teachers face the challenge of making multiple decisions simultaneously whenever a spoken error occurs.

1 Decide what kind of error has been made (grammatical? pronunciation? etc.)

2 Decide whether to deal with it (is it useful to correct it?)

3 Decide when to deal with it (now? end of the activity? later?)

4 Decide who will correct (teacher? student self-correction? other students?)

5 Decide on an appropriate technique to indicate that an error has occurred or to enable the correction

As emphasized in several recent meta-analyses of empirical corrective feedback studies (Lyster & Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & Spada, 2006; Li, 2010), it is of great importance to take into consideration “moderating

Corrective feedback in second language (L2) learning is influenced by a variety of factors, including feedback type, error type, interaction mode (oral, written, or computer-mediated), instructional contexts, age, gender, proficiency, first language transfer, cognitive abilities, and anxiety (Sheen & Ellis, 2011) Sheen and Ellis emphasize that error correction is a complex social activity, suggesting that effective investigation into this area should consider the attitudes and opinions of both teachers and learners Aligning these perspectives can enhance the effectiveness of error correction and improve the overall learning process for L2 students.

The issue of which errors should be corrected can be recognized in selective correction theories developed by Byrne (1998), Edge (1989), Raimes (1983), Ferris

In 1999, it was noted that implementing educational proposals can be challenging for teachers, particularly during speaking activities that demand quick decision-making Corder's (1967) theory differentiates between "error" and "mistake," while Burt introduces the concepts of "local" and "global" errors, highlighting the complexities teachers face in addressing student language issues effectively.

The lack of a universally accepted theory on grammatical complexity complicates error correction in teaching, leading to potential inconsistencies as noted by Truscott (1996) However, selective correction remains a viable approach One effective strategy is for teachers to concentrate on correcting specific types of errors at a time, such as focusing on the “-s” ending sound in one session while addressing past tense errors in another, as suggested by Sheen and Ellis (2011).

Last but not least, who should correct learner’s errors is also worth debating

Teachers should encourage students to self-correct their work, and if they struggle, peers can assist with corrections, aligning with the learner-centered approach prevalent in modern Western education (Hedge, 2000) However, challenges arise, including students' reliance on teacher corrections and their limited linguistic knowledge, which can hinder effective self-correction.

Peer correction can present challenges, as noted by Ferris (2003), who emphasizes the necessity of training students for effective peer reviews A recommended approach for educators is to implement a two-stage correction process, where self-correction or peer correction is encouraged first, followed by teacher-provided corrections (Sheen & Ellis, 2011) Ultimately, teachers remain essential in the error correction process, determining whether students or peers address the errors and delivering final feedback to validate the correct answers.

Oral error correction techniques

This study examines spoken error correction techniques, which are methods used to address students' oral errors, often referred to as correction strategies These techniques have evolved over time, with Lyster and Ranta (1997) identifying six common strategies that teachers utilize to effectively correct students' errors.

Directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides the correct form

S: The movie is interested (Word form)

T: You should say the movie is interesting, not interested

Without directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student‟s error, or provides the correction

S: I see a great movie yesterday (Tense)

T: Oh great, you saw a great movie

The teacher uses phrases such as “Excuse me?” and “I don’t understand” to signal that the message is unclear or that the student has made an error, indicating the need for clarification or a rephrasing of the statement.

S: My father is a cooker (Word use)

T: Pardon? Can you say it again?

Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or provides comments or information related to the formation of the student‟s utterance

S: Many person like pop music (Noun form)

T: “Many” should go with plural noun Is “person” a plural noun?

S: People, many people like pop music

The teacher elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions (e.g.,

Elicitation questions, such as asking “How do we say that in English?” and pausing for the student to respond (e.g., “It’s a…”), go beyond simple yes/no inquiries by prompting more elaborate answers.

S: I have a boy child (Word-use)

The teacher repeats the student‟s error and adjusts intonation to draw student‟s attention to it

S: Today, I will tell you about your family

Those above mentioned techniques have been categorised according to their

Effective language instruction involves varying degrees of feedback to learners, which can be categorized as either implicit or explicit Implicit feedback includes techniques such as recasts, clarification requests, elicitation, and repetition, while explicit feedback encompasses explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback These methods provide immediate, or "online," responses from teachers, allowing learners to recognize nonstandard language use Diane and Barbara (1998) further elaborate on these feedback types, emphasizing the importance of explicit correction in language learning.

2) Recast; 3) Clarification; 4) Elicitation; 5) Repetition On the contrary, Truscott is likely to view all techniques of oral error correction as explicit without acknowledging implicit types such as recasts and clarification requests (Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Shaffer, 2002) Modern researchers also recommend new techniques such as using body language and facial expressions; however, these techniques have not used widely among language practitioners and few researches investigate their effectiveness Sheen and Ellis (2011) provide a more thorough picture of error correction strategies covering input-providing (i.e., the learner is supplied with the correct form) or output-prompting (i.e., it can attempt to elicit a correction from the learner); implicit as when the teacher simply requests clarification in response to the learner‟s erroneous utterance or explicit as when the teacher directly corrects the learner and/or provides some kind of metalinguistic explanation of the error (see Table 1)

Lyster and Ranta's (1997) techniques have become essential and widely recognized in the fields of research and language practice, forming the foundation for subsequent theories Consequently, this study centers on the model proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997).

Table 1 A Taxonomy of Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies

Numerous studies have focused on correction techniques for spoken errors in TEFL lessons, largely based on Lyster and Ranta's (1997) framework Iliana Panova and Roy Lyster (2002) identify seven feedback types: recast, translation, clarification request, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction, and repetition Similarly, Saeideh Ahangari and Somayeh Amirzadeh (2011) outline eight corrective feedback techniques for advanced learners, which include recast, classification, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, repetition, explicit correction, translation, and multiple feedbacks Among these, recast is the most commonly employed technique for addressing oral errors Furthermore, the attitudes of both teachers and learners towards these correction methods have become a significant focus of research.

Teachers‟ versus learners‟ attitudes on oral error correction techniques

Numerous studies have focused on teachers' beliefs and attitudes regarding error correction, often overlooking learners' preferences and perspectives James (1998) questioned why learners' perceptions are disregarded in error treatment, despite the emphasis on considering them in other areas of second language teaching Understanding how students perceive error correction is essential for effective pedagogy, as highlighted by researchers such as Allwright (1975), Cathcart and Olsen (1976), Schulz (1996), and Lee and Ridley (1999).

Research indicates that discrepancies between teachers' and students' attitudes towards error correction can negatively impact instructional outcomes Schulz (1996) found that students are generally more receptive to error correction in writing and speaking than their teachers Nunan (1993) highlighted a significant mismatch between the beliefs of learners and teachers regarding error correction, attributing these discrepancies to differing pedagogical agendas and individual perceptions of the learning process (Nunan, 1995) Studies by Peacock (1998, 2001) revealed that these belief gaps can diminish learner confidence and satisfaction, leading to reluctance in participating in communicative activities and ultimately resulting in adverse learning outcomes Furthermore, Cathcart and Olsen (1976) emphasized that biases and attitudes significantly influence the effectiveness of corrections.

In summary, the literature review highlights the extent to which Hendrickson's (1978) key questions have been explored, providing a solid foundation for future research It is essential to further investigate the actual experiences of teachers in contextual language teaching to adapt findings from previous studies effectively.

A literature review is essential for researchers as it enables them to compare the practices and beliefs of international educators with those from AIS, ultimately aiming to provide valuable insights and recommendations for language teaching practitioners.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design Method

This research employs a case study approach, focusing on teachers and learners of the AIS as a defined unit, in line with Gerring's (2007) definition The case study aims to describe, explain, and interpret findings through the contextualized perspectives of participants regarding behaviors, events, and situations (van Lier, 1988) Data collection involved a mix of classroom observations, in-depth interviews, and questionnaires, highlighting the multifaceted nature of case study representation (Hinkel, 2011) This methodology is well-suited for examining how AIS teachers implement error correction techniques, elucidating their choices, and exploring students' attitudes towards error correction.

Utilizing classroom observations, interviews, and questionnaires with both teachers and students at AIS exemplifies a triangulation method in research This approach combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies to enhance the research design, acknowledging that relying on a single method is insufficient to address competing causal factors (Holtzhausen, 2001).

School‟s setting

The Academy of International Studies offers essential English courses for two primary groups: undergraduate students and in-service security officers These courses are integral to the school's training program, typically spanning five semesters and divided into two stages, including general English.

The program offers specialized English for international affairs, taught by around 15 qualified English teachers who have graduated from universities in Vietnam and abroad Currently, they instruct over 190 students, all of whom have spent time in English-speaking countries to enhance their language skills This experience has allowed the teachers to adopt modern pedagogical methods and demonstrate innovative approaches in their teaching.

Undergraduate students from diverse provinces and backgrounds take English as a compulsory subject, while in-service students, who have graduated from various universities and colleges, attend the AIS to obtain a certificate in English for international affairs Teachers face the challenge of managing mixed levels and personalities in the classroom; however, the students' shared traits of high discipline and seriousness in their studies provide a significant advantage in the teaching process.

Participants

The selection of research participants in case study research involves a blend of purposeful and stratified sampling methods (Creswell, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994) According to Maxwell (2013), the primary aim of case-study researchers is to explain, describe, and interpret the specific case rather than generalize findings to a broader population.

Sampling focuses on the richness of information rather than simply gathering representative opinions In this study, purposeful sampling is employed with two teacher-participants who lead speaking lessons Teacher 1 is a seasoned educator from Hanoi National University - University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), a top institution for English teacher training in Vietnam, embodying traditional teaching methods In contrast, Teacher 2 is a young, innovative educator who transitioned into the pedagogy field during her MA program in TESOL, bringing fresh perspectives to her teaching practice.

19 education provided by foreign lecturers both in her Bachelor and MA courses She also had the chance of studying in the USA for six months

BA, English Teacher Education, ULIS, Hanoi;

MA, English Language Teaching Methodology, ULIS, Hanoi

BA, International Studies, Hanoi University;

MA, TESOL, Joint program between Victoria University and Hanoi University

The researcher aims to compare their beliefs and practices regarding error correction with those of their students, investigating any discrepancies between the two perspectives To accomplish this, 56 students from three classes, all taught by the same two teachers and following an Intermediate level speaking syllabus focused on political news (Thematic Speaking), were selected for the study The participants included two undergraduate classes—A1, consisting of higher-performing students, and A2, comprising lower-performing students—as well as one class of in-service students employed as security officers seeking to improve their English skills at the AIS All student participants were at an intermediate level during the research.

Research Procedure

The research commenced with classroom observations during six speaking lessons conducted by two AIS teachers, with each teacher leading three lessons These observations were carried out with the teachers' consent, although they were unaware of the specific research focus The primary aim was to investigate the error correction techniques utilized by the teachers, including the frequency of each technique's application and instances where corrections were overlooked, based on the total number of errors recorded by the researcher.

Observation Checklist in Appendix E) The typical examples of teachers‟ corrective feedbacks were also noted to illustrate remarkable cases of teachers‟ correction

After conducting classroom observations, interviews were held with teacher-participants to delve into their attitudes and beliefs regarding error correction and to understand the rationale behind their classroom practices To prevent any ambiguity or misunderstandings arising from language barriers, all interviews were conducted in Vietnamese.

At the conclusion of the study, students completed questionnaires designed to gather their perspectives on error correction and their teachers' correction strategies The questionnaire items were informed by observations made in the classroom To encourage honest feedback, students were not interviewed directly, as this could inhibit their willingness to express their true opinions Instead, the questionnaires included a mix of closed and open-ended questions, allowing students to share their thoughts more freely.

The researcher compared the attitudes of teachers and students regarding spoken error correction and various correction techniques, while also referencing insights from linguistic experts and researchers globally This study aims to provide valuable implications for teachers at AIS and other TEFL educators to enhance their teaching practices.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

The initial research question emerged from an analysis of data gathered through classroom observations of six speaking lessons led by two teacher-participants Each teacher was observed during three lessons with their consent, but without prior knowledge of the research topic to ensure their performance remained unaffected Subsequently, the findings from the observations were validated through interviews with the teachers.

In 90-minute speaking lessons, teachers guided students to brainstorm ideas on a current political issue aligned with the weekly syllabus of Thematic Speaking Skills Initially, students collaborated in pairs or groups, and later, teachers prompted individual responses to enhance understanding and engagement.

In the classroom, teachers facilitated various speaking activities, including information exchanges, discussions, debates, presentations, and interviews, tailored to their lesson plans These activities primarily served as "transaction" and "performance" exercises, focusing more on fluency than on accuracy, as noted by Jones (1996) and Burns (1998).

Table 3: Class-room observation of error correction techniques

(adapted from Lyster and Ranta’s proposal, 1997)

According to Table 3, teacher participants utilized six correction techniques in their practice: Explicit correction, Repetition, Recast, Clarification, Elicitation, and Delayed correction Notably, Delayed correction emerged as the most frequently used technique among both teachers Teacher 1 implemented a diverse range of these techniques, including Explicit correction, Repetition, and Recast.

Teacher 1 utilized a variety of techniques, prominently featuring Elicitation at 21.05%, while also employing Clarification and Delayed correction In contrast, Teacher 2 focused on four primary strategies: Explicit correction, Recast, Elicitation, and Delayed correction Notably, Teacher 2 demonstrated a balanced use of Explicit correction and Delayed correction, while Elicitation was used only once to address students' content errors during the observed lessons.

Both teachers predominantly utilized delayed correction, with Teacher 1 applying it 42.1% of the time and Teacher 2 40% Teacher 1 frequently noted errors on the whiteboard while students were speaking, doing so five times out of eight instances of offline correction, and relied on her memory for the remaining corrections In contrast, Teacher 2 primarily depended on her memory for error correction, doing so five out of six times, and only recorded students' errors once during the observations.

Both teachers frequently overlooked correcting learners' errors, with Teacher 1 skipping corrections 11 times (36.67% of recorded errors) and Teacher 2 14 times (48.27%) Teacher 1 often opted for positive feedback or general comments during mini-presentations and short conversations instead of addressing specific mistakes An example of this can be seen in Observation 1.

Observation 1: Extract from Teacher 1’s lesson

Two students were performing a brief discussion exchanging their opinions on Brexit

Student 1: … most Britain people (Noun phrase: British people) support for

Brexit because their country get disadvantages (pronunciation: wrong, no word stress, no ending sound) from EU

Teacher 1 skipped correcting grammatical errors such as “Britain people”,

The article highlights that while grammatical errors like "support it" or "culture" may not significantly impede communication, immediate correction of pronunciation errors, such as "disadvantages" lacking proper stress or ending sounds, is crucial Ultimately, rather than offering specific corrective feedback, the instructor opted to provide a general comment on the students' speaking content at the conclusion of their conversation.

With respect to Teacher 2, she employed Explicit correction either after the student finished his speaking turn or at the end of the activity Observation 2 as follows is a typical illustration

Observation 2: Extract from Teacher 2’s lesson

A pair of students came in front of the class to perform a mini-presentation on

“What is NATO” using PowerPoint slides that they had prepared at home

Student 1: …NATO was formed after the end of the Second World War There are (Verb tense: were) 12 nations sign (Grammatical structure: signing/ which signed)

Teacher: Sorry, “their country get”…? (Elicitation)

Student: disadvantages (other students reminded: “disadvantages”)

Teacher: disadvantages/disədˈvan(t)ijiz/

Student: Ah, disadvantages/disədˈvan(t)ijiz/

Student 2: I think only old people support it (preposition: support for it), but the younger don‟t want Brexit because they like travelling and learning new culture

(plural form: cultures) from other countries…

The teacher expressed gratitude for the diverse perspectives shared on the contentious topic of Brexit, acknowledging the persuasive arguments presented by both sides This highlights the complexity of the issue and encourages further discussion.

25 the North Atlantic (pronunciation: /atlantic/ no word stress, no ending sound)

Student 2: … Article 5 say (Verb form: says) that if a member is attacked

(pronunciation: no ending sound /kt/), other members will consider it as an act of attack (pronunciation: no ending sound /k/) against all members

Teacher 2: Good job You should notice the ending sounds like “is attacked /əˈtổkt/” or attack /əˈtổk/ (Explicit correction)

Teacher 2 prioritized pronunciation errors over grammatical mistakes, such as the correct usage of "there are" versus "there were" and the forms of "sign," emphasizing the importance of sounds like the ending of "attack."

In her analysis, she categorized the errors as ending sound errors, but notably overlooked the mispronunciation of "Atlantic," possibly due to the teacher's failure to note it or deeming it a minor issue Teacher 2 prioritized correcting repeated and significant errors over less impactful ones.

Teacher 1 stated that she frequently used Repetition and Elicitation in her speaking lessons Explicit correction was the last resource she turned to after the mentioned techniques did not work In her opinion, Clarification and Recast were ineffective so she rarely used to provide correction

Teacher 2 emphasized that she primarily utilized explicit correction in her teaching, as she found other techniques to be ineffective and therefore used them less frequently in her classroom.

Besides, both teachers confirmed that they often employed Delayed correction by writing students‟ errors on the board while they were speaking

Discussion

The observation phase revealed both similarities and differences in the spoken error correction practices of the two teachers To gain deeper insights into their approaches, post-observation interviews were conducted to understand the rationale behind their use of error correction techniques in the classroom.

Both teacher-participants emphasized the importance of addressing pronunciation errors over grammar mistakes, with Teacher 1 advocating for early correction of these issues and focusing on word-use errors as students' proficiency improves Teacher 2 noted that pronunciation errors are prioritized because they significantly impact the meaning of the message Both teachers exhibited a tolerance for spoken errors, opting for selective correction rather than addressing every mistake, a method supported by language teaching experts Teacher 1 highlighted the importance of considering the objectives of speaking activities, the types of errors, and learners' proficiency levels when correcting, favoring accuracy-focused activities for correction She also emphasized a balanced approach for low-proficient learners, encouraging them with praise instead of over-correcting Teacher 2 added that only errors involving learned knowledge and understandable to students should be corrected, illustrating her point with specific examples.

A student expressing, "I go back to my hometown," may cause confusion for native speakers, who typically associate "hometown" with the place of birth, rather than the more specific interpretation of "my father's hometown" as understood in Vietnamese culture At the beginner level, it is not essential to correct this misunderstanding; teachers should allow students to progress to higher proficiency levels before addressing the cultural differences that influence language use.

Teacher 2 noted that students' traits significantly influenced teachers' approaches to error correction, with shy or unconfident students receiving less feedback, often individually after class, while enthusiastic students were corrected more frequently Additionally, the age of students played a role, particularly in in-service classes where some students were older than the teacher, a common aspect of the teaching environment at AIS As a younger educator, Teacher 2 approached corrective feedback with caution, attributing this to cultural influences in Vietnam, a concern not expressed by Teacher 1.

In correlation with this, Krashen, 2003, p 6; Morris & Tarone, 2003; Schulz,

Research from 2001 highlights the significant impact of individual and affective factors, such as anxiety, motivation, and attitude, on the effectiveness of error treatment in educational settings These factors, while intuitive, are challenging to quantify and play a crucial role in influencing not only the success of error correction (Dekeyeser, 1993; Krashen, 1994; Sheen, 2008; Truscott, 1999) but also the strategies teachers choose for correction (Yoshida, 2008) and their decisions on whether to address student errors (Yoshida, 2008) Understanding these influences is essential for informed classroom practices.

Last but not least, delayed correction was widely used, especially at the end of students‟ speech This finding was in line with tearchers‟ sharing in the interviews

28 that they would prefer waiting for their students to finish their speaking part before giving corrective feedback

I typically refrain from interrupting students while they speak, allowing them to finish their thoughts before addressing any errors This approach helps maintain their flow of thinking and supports a more natural conversation, as teacher intervention can disrupt their thought process and hinder the development of meaningful dialogue By prioritizing uninterrupted speech, we can better achieve the goals of enhancing and expanding student conversations.

Teacher 2 also clarified that she only disrupted students‟ speech to correct the repeated errors or content errors which deter the conveance of the message

Notwithstanding such similarities, there remained several differences in these teachers‟ practice of correction As an experienced teaching practitioner, Teacher 1 performed more corrections and applied more diversified techniques than Teacher 2

Teachers' beliefs, shaped by their values and worldview, significantly impact their teaching practices, as noted by Williams and Burden (1997) Phipps and Borg (2009) highlight that these beliefs about teaching and learning are often influenced by teachers' own experiences as students, which are typically solidified before they even enter university (Holt Reynolds, 1992; Lortie).

Teacher 1 favored the Elicitation technique, an indirect method for error correction, while Teacher 2 preferred Explicit correction, a direct approach This preference aligns with their responses in interviews, particularly regarding the fifth question about correction methods Teacher 1 indicated that she often used indirect techniques to help students learn to identify their own errors, enhancing their retention and understanding.

Teacher 2 prefers explicit correction over implicit techniques, as she believes the latter consumes too much valuable teaching time.

Teacher 1 reported using Repetition (15.78%) and Elicitation (21.05%) as primary correction methods, while denying the use of Recast, despite it being observed in 10.52% of her corrections This discrepancy may stem from the implicit nature of recasts, which can go unnoticed by both learners and teachers Research by Jensen (2002), Loewen & Philip (2006), and others highlights a common disconnect between teachers' philosophical beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding recasts Factors contributing to this gap include time constraints, cognitive processing limits of students during corrections, and concerns about the emotional impact on learners External stressors such as work overload, time limitations, behavioral issues, and resource shortages also hinder teachers' performance Additionally, Kelly and Berthelsen (1995) identified various constraints impacting teaching practices, including time pressures and interpersonal relationships Despite the significant influence of teachers' beliefs on their performance, a notable gap persists between beliefs and actual teaching practices.

Research question 2: Discrepancies between teachers‟ and students‟ viewpoints

This study examined the responses from interviews with teachers and questionnaires from students to address the research question Additionally, observational data was revisited at key moments to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.

4.2.1 Whether to correct every error of students’

The findings reveal a significant difference in perspectives between teachers and students regarding whether teachers should correct every error made by students Both interviewed teachers expressed disagreement with this notion, with Teacher 1 noting that correcting all errors disrupts students' cognitive flow, while Teacher 2 highlighted the impracticality of correcting every mistake This aligns with Hendrickson's (1978) view that correcting all errors is undesirable or unfeasible Additionally, Dulay and Burt (1974) argue that making errors is an inevitable part of language learning, suggesting that errors should be approached with patience and tolerance.

Figure 1: Students’ views on correcting every error (Q1 in Questionaires)

Over 80% of surveyed students expressed a preference for their teachers to correct all spoken errors, as they wish to learn from their mistakes and improve their English Previous studies indicate that learners generally desire more correction than they believe they receive Schulz (1996) noted that students are often more receptive to corrective feedback than teachers In contrast, only 25% of teachers in Ancker's survey (2000) felt that all errors should be corrected, while 76% of students disagreed Teachers often avoid correction due to concerns about its negative impact on students' confidence and motivation This view is echoed by some students who feel that excessive correction can hinder their thought process and lead to forgetfulness in conversation.

A study aimed at investigating the impact of corrective feedback on student confidence revealed that most students across three classes did not feel their confidence diminished when corrected However, a notable minority expressed that error correction negatively affected their speaking confidence, with the highest percentage found in class A1, comprised of younger undergraduates who performed well on the placement test This finding challenges the conventional belief that less proficient students are more susceptible to losing confidence and disengaging from learning, as suggested by Teacher 1.

While I typically do not focus on students' personalities due to the stable traits of university and working students, I find it important to consider the characteristics of low-proficient learners, particularly among Vietnamese students.

I do not over-correct them to avoid their boredom and discouragement; on the contrary, I compliment more on their progress

This finding was in correspondence with DeKeyser (1993), who concluded that

Students with low anxiety levels benefit more from error correction than those with high anxiety levels Therefore, teachers should consider individual student traits when addressing spoken errors to enhance learning outcomes.

Figure 2: Correction’s effects on students’ confidence

As findings from class-room observations and interviews, both teachers preferred delaying the correction until after students finished their speaking part (option b in students‟ questionaires) (Figure 3)

Figure 3 Students’ preferences of correction time (Q3 in Questionaires)

Q.3 You prefer the teacher to correct: a immediately when you make the error b after you finish your speaking part c at the end of the lesson, before the whole class without mentioning who made the error d at the end of the lesson, before the whole class and indicate who made the error

In a recent survey, 78% of students selected option b, which aligned with the preferences of both teachers, highlighting a reciprocal choice between teachers and students The second most favored option, chosen by 14% of students, was option a, occasionally observed in the teachers' lessons Options c and d were not noted in classroom observations or mentioned by the teachers Research supports the effectiveness of delayed correction, with Rahimi and Dastjerdi (2012) noting that students who received delayed correction experienced lower anxiety levels in class.

Remarkably, there existed an evident mismatch between two teachers‟ perspectives on whether to directly indicate the error and provide the corrected

Teacher 1 advocated for indirect correction, believing it encourages students to self-correct and enhances their learning from mistakes In contrast, Teacher 2 favored direct correction, arguing that indirect methods could lead to confusion and waste valuable lesson time.

Figure 4: Students’ preferences of explicit or implicit correction

(Q4 in Questionaires) Q.4 You would like the teacher to: a Directly indicate the error and give the correct version b Elicit to help you yourself find and correct the error

Research indicates that explicit prompts and detailed explanations are more effective than implicit ones, as demonstrated by Nassaji and Swain (2000) This finding aligns with Sheen's (2006) study, which highlights a preference for explicit corrective feedback techniques Additionally, Ferris and Robert (2001) found that students not only anticipate more feedback from their teachers but also favor direct feedback over indirect methods Lee (2005) further emphasized that direct feedback is particularly beneficial for beginner students or in contexts where errors are prevalent.

Chandler (2003) conducted a study involving 31 ESL students to examine the impact of direct and indirect feedback strategies on addressing issues like sentence structure and word choice, particularly focusing on errors that are unlikely to self-correct.

Research indicates that students favor direct feedback for its simplicity in facilitating revisions, as evidenced by a study involving 35 revisions However, contrary findings from various studies on language acquisition suggest that indirect feedback is often preferred, as it actively engages students in the correction process This engagement is believed to contribute to a deeper, long-term acquisition of the target language.

Findings from student questionnaires revealed significant implications for AIS teachers, particularly regarding the preferences for correction methods among different proficiency levels In classes A2 and A3, there was a balanced comparison between two correction options, while class A1 showed a marked preference for implicit correction methods, with the number of students favoring this approach doubling those who preferred explicit correction Notably, class A1 comprised the highest proficiency students among the three classes, aligning with previous research indicating that more proficient learners are better equipped to self-correct their errors (Kenedy, 2010) In contrast, less proficient learners struggled with error correction, often overlooking implicit feedback techniques like recasts (Panova and Lyster).

In the context of AIS teaching, it is evident that learners with high proficiency prefer implicit correction techniques, while those with lower proficiency favor explicit corrective feedback.

Teacher 1 frequently employs Technique 2 (Repetition) and Technique 5 (Elicitation) as implicit forms of corrective feedback, aligning with her earlier responses She considers Technique 1 (Explicit correction) a last resort for students struggling to identify their errors Additionally, she views Technique 3 (Recast) and Technique 4 (Clarification) as ineffective methods for addressing student mistakes.

CONCLUSION

Major findings and implications

Since the introduction of Communicative Language Teaching in Vietnam during the 1990s, the teaching of speaking skills, particularly error correction, has become a significant concern for educators nationwide There is no universally applicable methodology suitable for every teaching context, especially at the Academy of International Studies (AIS) This study aims to offer a comprehensive and practical insight into how spoken error correction is perceived and executed by both students and teachers at AIS, with the goal of providing recommendations to enhance the teaching and learning experience.

The research revealed that teachers at the Academy of International Studies utilized six error correction techniques in speaking lessons: Explicit correction, Repetition, Recast, Clarification, Elicitation, and Delayed correction, with Delayed correction being the most frequently employed method Notably, Teacher 1 utilized a wider variety of corrective feedback and preferred implicit techniques, while Teacher 2 favored explicit methods Despite these differences, both teachers agreed on key principles, such as not correcting all student errors and avoiding interruptions during speech Additionally, factors like error types and student characteristics influenced their approaches to correction There was a notable discrepancy between teachers and students regarding error correction, as most students preferred all errors to be corrected, whereas teachers hesitated due to concerns about the negative impacts of over-correction Furthermore, higher proficiency students expressed a preference for more implicit correction methods.

40 corrective feedback while the two teachers and low profienct students devided equally between implicit and explicit techniques

The discrepancies highlighted in these results carry significant implications for teachers at AIS and other practitioners in similar contexts It is essential to align teachers' and students' expectations to foster a more effective learning environment (Shulz).

In 1996, it was suggested that teachers should clarify the reasons behind their choice of corrective feedback, especially for adult learners who have prior experience in learning a second or foreign language (Jeon and Kang).

In light of students' expectations for more correction from their teachers, it is essential for educators to focus on addressing errors effectively While many students desire correction for every mistake, teachers should clarify that correcting every error is impractical and time-consuming Incorporating students' preferences into the pedagogic program is crucial, necessitating adaptations in teaching practices Specifically, teachers at AIS should employ more implicit correction techniques for oral errors among higher-level students A balanced approach to error correction is recommended; teachers should avoid extremes by not solely relying on implicit or explicit techniques Instead, they should consider individual student traits and proficiency levels, as data indicates that advanced students tend to favor implicit correction methods.

In summary, educators must recognize these discrepancies to facilitate student comprehension and progressively close the gap, ultimately improving teaching and learning effectiveness.

Limitations

The study, conducted over a few months with a limited participant pool, highlights that its findings may not be applicable to a broader population of teachers and learners Utilizing a case study methodology, the research focused on specific instances within a single school, which may limit the generalizability of the results To enhance reliability, future research should involve a longer observation period of students and learners Additionally, a more comprehensive data analysis approach is recommended, particularly since this was the researcher’s first experience with a case study and triangulation method.

Recommendation for further studies

The field of spoken error correction remains underexplored in Vietnam due to conflicting theories among teachers and differing beliefs between teachers and students Future research should involve a broader participant population categorized into specific groups to address the significant discrepancies identified This study highlights the need to consider these differences in teaching speaking skills Researchers are encouraged to investigate effective error correction techniques tailored to various types of errors at different stages of speaking lessons A larger participant size and extended research duration would yield a more comprehensive understanding of preferences among teachers and students Additionally, conducting more interviews and personal exchanges with both groups is recommended Implementing action research to apply preferred corrective techniques and assess their effectiveness is also suggested for future studies.

1 Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S (2011) Exploring the teachers‟ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868

2 Ancker, W (2000) Errors and corrective feedback: Updated theory and classroom practice English teaching forum, 38:20-25

3 Byrne, D (1988) Teaching writing skills London: Longman

4 Brooks, N (1960) Language and language learning (2nd Ed.) New York:

5 Burns, Anne (1998) Teaching speaking Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

6 Burt, M K (1975) Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 9, 53-63

7 Burt, M., and Kiparsky, C (1974) Global and Local Mistakes, in Schumann, H and Stenson, N (ed) New Frontiers in Second Language Learning Rowley

8 Carroll, S., Swain, M., & Roberge, Y (1992) The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations

9 Chaudron, C (1986) Teachers„ priorities in correcting learners„ errors in French immersion classes, in Day, R (ed) Talking to learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers

10 Chenoweth, N A., Day, R R., Chun, A E., & Luppescu, S (1983) Attitudes and Preferences of ESL Students to Error Correction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 79-87

11 Chomsky, N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, Mass: MIT

12 Cohen, L., & Manion, L (1994) Research methods in education (4th ed.) London: Routledge

13 Corder, P (1967) The significance of learners‟ errors International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-170

14 Corder, P.(1974b) Error Analysis Techniques in Applied Linguistics The

Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, 3 122-153

15 Corder, S P (1975) Error analysis In J P B Allen & S P Corder (Eds.),

Papers in applied linguistics, The Edinburgh course in applied linguistics, vol 3: Techniques in applied linguistics Oxford: Oxford University Press

16 Cotter, C (2013) Accuracy and fluency Retrieved from http://www.headsupenglish.com/index.php/esl-articles/esl-four-skills/494-

17 Creswell, J W (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

18 Davis, Paul M., and Eric Pearse (2000) Success in English Teaching Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers Oxford University Press

19 DeKeyser, R M (1993) The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency Modern Language Journal, 501-514

20 Delisle, H (1982) Native speaker judgment and the evaluation of errors in German Modern Language Journal, 66(1) 39-48

21 Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies: Oxford University Press Oxford

22 Edge, J (1989) Mistakes and correction New York: Longman

23 Ellis, R (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition Oxford Applied

24 Ellis, R.(1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford

25 Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second language Writing, 8, 1-10

26 Ferris, D (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

27 Friedman, D A (2009) Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom Applied Linguistics, amp037

28 George, H (1972) Common Errors in Language Learning Newbury House

29 Hadley, A O (2001) Teaching Language in Context: Heinle & Heinle

30 Haifaa I Faqeih (2012) The Effectiveness of Error Correction during Oral Interaction: Experimental Studies with English L2 Learners in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia https://www.researchgate.net/ H /Haifaa-Faqeih-

31 Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H (2001) Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback EUROSLA yearbook, 1(1), 99-122

32 Hedge, T (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom Oxford:

33 Hemmens, A (2011) Accuracy vs fluency Retrieved from https://www.esl- library.com/blog/2011/07/05/accuracy-vs-fluency/

35 Hinkel, E (2011) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol 2): Routledge

36 Hwa-Froelich, D., Hodson, B W., & Edwards, H T (2002) Characteristics of Vietnamese phonology American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,

37 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing:

An introduction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 1-19) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

38 James, C (1998) Errors in language learning and use: Exploring Error Analysis London: Longman

39 Johnstone, B (2000) Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics (Vol 50): Oxford

40 Jones, Pauline (1996) Planning an oral language program Melbourne: PETA, 12-26

41 Khoi, M N., & Noriko I (2012) A comparison of learners‟ and teachers‟ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25-49

42 Larsen-Freeman, D and Anderson, M (2011) Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press

43 Li, S (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis

44 Lightbown, P M., & Spada, N (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching Studies in second language acquisition, 12(04), 429-448

45 Lyster, R., & Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66

46 Lyster, R., & Mori, H (2006) Corrective feedback and instructional counterbalance Studies in Second Language Acquisition

47 Lyster, R., & Saito, K (2010) Oral feedback in classroom SLA Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2) 265-302

48 Mackey, A., & Goo, J (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis In A Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp 408-452) Oxford, UK:

49 Maxwell, Joseph A (2013) Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

50 Moon, T K (2005) Error correction coding Mathematical Methods and Algorithms Jhon Wiley and Son

51 Mosbah, G.A (2007) Treatment of Classroom Oral Errors: a Comparative Study Between Native and Nonnative Speaking Teachers School of Education

52 Murphy, J M (1991) Oral communication in TESOL: Integrating speaking, listening, and pronunciation TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 51-75

53 Nilsson, E (2012) A comparison of the effects of accuracy vs fluency based tasks onstudent motivation, self-confidence, accuracy and fluency Halmstad

54 Nunan, D (1992) Research methods in language learning: Cambridge

55 Nunan, D., 2003 Practical English Language Teaching NY:McGraw-Hill.47-

56 Pawlak, M (2013) Error Correction in the Foreign anguage lassroom econsidering the ssues Springer Science & Business Media

57 Pham H, H, (2007) Communicative Language Teaching: Unity within diversity

58 Phipps, S., & Borg, S (2009) Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching , System

59 Raimes, A (1983) Techniques in teaching writing New York: Oxford

60 Richards, J (1974) Error analysis and second language strategies, in Schumann,

H and Stenson, N (eds), New Frontiers in Second Language Learning, Newbury House Publishers, Inc

61 Richards, J y Lockhart, C.(1996) Reflective teaching in second language classrooms Cambridge Language Education

62 Richards, J C., & Rodgers, T S (2014) Approaches and Methods in Language

63 Richards, K (2011) Case Study Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Routledge

64 Russell, J., & Spada, N (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 133-164

65 Sato, K (2003) Improving Our Students' Speaking Skills: Using Selective Error Correction and Group Work To Reduce Anxiety and Encourage Real Communication

66 Scrivener, J (2005) Learning teaching Hueber Verlag GmbH and Company

67 Schulz, R.A (1996) Focus on Form in the Foreign Language Classroom: Students' and Teachers' views on Error Correction and the Role of Grammar

68 Scrivener, J (1994) Learning Teaching Oxford, U.K.: Macmillan Heinemann

69 Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R (2011) Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching

Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Routledge

70 Tedick, D J., & de Gortari, B (1998) Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching ACIE Newsletter, 1(3), 1-6

71 Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.Language learning, 46(2), 327-369

72 Truscott, J., & Hsu, A Y.-p (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning

Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305

73 Van Lier, L (1988) The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language classroom research New York: Longman

74 Van, H V (2010) The current situation and issues of the teaching of English in Vietnam Ritsumeikan studies in language and culture 22(1)

75 Walz, J C (1982) Error Correction Techniques for the Foreign Language Classroom Language in Education: Theory and Practice, No 50: ERIC

76 Wright, W E (2010) Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, and practice: Philadelphia: Caslon

77 Yin, R K (1994) Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.)

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

78 Young, D J (1990) An investigation of students' perspectives on anxiety and speaking Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553

This questionnaire is designed to answer the research questions of the study

The article titled “Teachers’ Error Correction Techniques in Speaking Lessons at the Academy of International Studies” by Ms Le Nguyen Dieu Anh emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in the research process Participants are assured that their information will solely be used for research purposes, and their cooperation in this survey is greatly valued.

Please circle the appropriate option and explain your answer where necessary

1 You would like your teacher to correct all the errors that you make when speaking English a Agree b Disagree

Please give the reasons for your preference :

2 You often feel unconfident when being corrected by the teacher a Agree b Disagree

3 You prefer the teacher to correct: a immediately when you make the error b after you finish your speaking part

At the conclusion of the lesson, errors can be addressed in two ways: either by discussing them in front of the entire class without identifying the individual responsible or by openly indicating who made the mistake.

4 You would like the teacher to: a Directly indicate the error and give the correct version b Elicit to help you yourself find and correct the error

5 Circle the error correction technique(s) that you most prefer among the techniques below:

5.1 Explicit correction: Directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides the correct form

- Student: I go to school yesterday

- Teacher: No, you should say: I went to school yesterday

5.2 Repitition: Repeating the student‟s utterance and changing the intonation to indicate the error

- Teacher: You go to school yesterday??

5.3 Recast: Without directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student‟s error, or provides the correction

- Teacher: Yes, you went to school yesterday

5.4 Clarification: indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student‟s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or are formulation is required

- Teacher: Pardon?/ I‟m sorry, can you say it again?

5.5 Elicitation: The teacher elicits the correct form from the student by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher‟s utterance

6 Among the techniques in Question 5, which do you find the least preferable one?

Please give the reasons for your preference:

Thank you for your cooperation!

PHIẾU THAM KHẢO Ý KIẾN HỌC VIÊN

Phiếu tham khảo ý kiến này được thiết kế nhằm phục vụ cho nghiên cứu khoa học về “Phương pháp sửa lỗi trong giờ học kỹ năng Nói tiếng Anh tại Học viện Quốc tế” của giảng viên Lê Nguyễn Diệu Anh Người tham gia không cần cung cấp thông tin cá nhân, vì vậy tác giả mong muốn các học viên trả lời một cách thẳng thắn và khách quan để hỗ trợ cho việc hoàn thành nghiên cứu một cách hiệu quả nhất.

1 Bạn muốn giáo viên sửa tất cả các lỗi mình mắc phải khi nói tiếng Anh a Đồng ý b Không đồng ý

Hãy nêu lý do cho lựa chọn của bạn:

2 Bạn thường cảm thấy mất tự tin khi giáo viên chữa lỗi cho mình a Đồng ý b Không đồng ý

3 Bạn thích giáo viên chữa lỗi cho bạn : a Ngay sau khi bạn nói sai b Sau khi bạn nói xong phần của mình c Vào cuối buổi học, chữa chung trước cả lớp nhưng không đề cập cụ thể lỗi của ai d Vào cuối buổi học, chữa chung trước cả lớp và chỉ ra lỗi của ai

4 Bạn muốn giáo viên khi chữa lỗi: a Chỉ ra ngay lỗi sai ở đâu và đưa ra đáp án luôn b Gợi ý để bạn tự tìm ra lỗi sai và tự sửa

5 Trong những cách chữa lỗi sau, cách nào bạn mong muốn được giáo viên sử dụng để chữa lỗi cho bạn nhất? Khoanh tròn đáp án phù hợp

5.1 Trực tiếp chỉ ra lỗi sai của học viên và đưa ra đáp án đúng (Explicit correction)

5.2 Lặp lại lỗi sai của học viên và điều chỉnh tông giọng để thu hút sự chú ý của học viên (Repitition)

5.3 Nhắc lại câu của học viên với lỗi đã sửa (Recast)

5.4 Yêu cầu học viên nhắc lại (Clarification)

5.5 Gợi ý để học viên sửa lại (Elicitation)

6 Trong số các cách ở câu hỏi 5, cách nào bạn không thích nhất?

Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các bạn!

1 In your opinion, should teachers correct all the students‟ oral errors in speaking lessons?

2 Which factors do you consider when correcting your students‟ oral errors?

3 When would you prefer correcting your students‟ oral errors? While they are speaking or after they finish their speech?

4 As correcting errors, do you prefer directly indicating students‟ errors or indirectly impliciting for students to find the errors by themselves?

5 Among the following techniques, which technique(s) do you most frequently employ?

5.1 Explicit correction: Directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher provides the correct form

5.3 Recast: Without directly indicating that the student‟s utterance was incorrect, the teacher implicitly reformulates the student‟s error, or provides the correction

5.4 Clarification: indicates that the message has not been understood or that the student‟s utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or are formulation is required

5.5 Elicitation: The teacher elicits the correct form from the student by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher‟s utterance

6 Regarding other techniques, why don‟t you apply frequently?

7 In addition to these techniques, are there any other techniques that you also use in your speaking lessons? What are they?

Thank you for your cooperation!

CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN GIÁO VIÊN

1 Theo thầy/ cô, trong giờ học kỹ năng Nói, giáo viên có nên chữa tất cả các lỗi cho học viên không? Vì sao?

2 Khi chữa lỗi nói cho học viên, thầy/ cô thường cân nhắc những yếu tố gì?

3 Thầy/ cô chọn thời điểm chữa lỗi như thế nào (khi học viên đang nói, bỏ qua hay để đến lúc nào)?

4 Khi chữa lỗi, thầy/ cô thường chỉ ra trực tiếp lỗi sai cho học viên hay gợi ý một cách gián tiếp để học viên tự nhận ra lỗi sai?

5 Trong số những cách chữa lỗi sau, thầy/ cô thường sử dụng những cách nào?

5.1 Trực tiếp chỉ ra lỗi sai của học viên và đưa ra đáp án đúng (Explicit correction)

5.2 Lặp lại lỗi sai của học viên và điều chỉnh tông giọng để thu hút sự chú ý của học viên (Repitition)

5.3 Nhắc lại câu của học viên với lỗi đã sửa (Recast)

5.4 Yêu cầu học viên nhắc lại (Clarification)

5.5 Gợi ý để học viên sửa lại (Elicitation)

6 Đối với những cách thầy/ cô chưa dùng thì lý do là gì? (chưa biết đến/ không hiệu quả…?)

Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của quý thầy/ cô

TRANSCRIPT OF THE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER 1

1 CÂU HỎI 1: Theo cô, trong giờ học kỹ năng Nói, giáo viên có nên chữa tất cả các lỗi cho học viên không? Vì sao?

Theo quan điểm của tôi, giáo viên không nên chữa tất cả các lỗi của học viên trong giờ học Nói, vì điều này có thể làm gián đoạn dòng suy nghĩ của các em Việc chữa lỗi cần phụ thuộc vào tính chất của hoạt động Nói, chẳng hạn như nếu mục tiêu là phát triển tính trôi chảy (fluency), tôi thường bỏ qua những lỗi không quan trọng Ngược lại, trong các hoạt động tập trung vào tính chính xác (accuracy) như role-play, tôi sẽ chữa lỗi sau khi học viên nói xong, nhưng chỉ chọn những lỗi tiêu biểu hoặc có tần suất xuất hiện cao để sửa chữa.

2 CÂU HỎI 2: Khi chữa lỗi nói cho học viên, thầy/ cô thường cân nhắc những yếu tố gì?

Việc chữa lỗi trong học tập phụ thuộc vào loại lỗi và trình độ của học viên Đối với học sinh ở giai đoạn đầu, giáo viên nên tập trung sửa lỗi phát âm và ngữ pháp Khi học viên đạt đến trình độ cao hơn, việc sửa lỗi từ vựng sẽ giúp họ sử dụng từ ngữ chính xác hơn.

Ngoài việc xem xét loại lỗi sai và trình độ của học viên, cô còn chú trọng đến tính cách của từng học viên để có phương pháp giảng dạy phù hợp.

Tôi thường không xem xét nhiều đến tính cách của học viên, vì đối tượng chủ yếu là sinh viên đại học hoặc cán bộ đã đi làm, họ có tính cách tương đối ổn định Tuy nhiên, đối với những học viên kém, đặc biệt là học viên Việt Nam, tôi hạn chế việc sửa lỗi để tránh gây chán nản, thay vào đó, tôi thường khen ngợi họ.

X ngợi và biểu dương những thành quả dù nhỏ của học viên là rất quan trọng Sau khi họ có tiến bộ, tôi sẽ tăng cường việc sửa lỗi Điều này cho thấy rằng sự kiên trì trong việc sửa lỗi là cần thiết đối với những học viên này.

3 CÂU HỎI 3: Cô thường chọn thời điểm chữa lỗi như thế nào (khi học viên đang nói, bỏ qua hay để đến lúc nào)?

Tôi thường không ngắt lời học viên mà để họ nói trọn ý trước khi sửa lỗi Việc ngắt lời sẽ làm gián đoạn mạch suy nghĩ của họ, khiến tư duy chậm lại và làm cho chuỗi lời nói bị ngắt quãng Mục tiêu của tôi là giúp học viên phát triển và duy trì đoạn hội thoại, vì vậy tôi ưu tiên để họ hoàn thành ý kiến của mình.

Tôi tránh sửa lỗi ngay lập tức khi học viên mắc phải, đặc biệt trong các hoạt động nói như thuyết trình Thay vào đó, tôi thường chờ đến cuối bài thuyết trình để đưa ra các sửa chữa, có thể cho từng cá nhân nếu thời gian cho phép, hoặc nhóm lại các lỗi phổ biến vào cuối buổi học Tôi sẽ nêu ra lỗi và khuyến khích cả lớp thảo luận cách sửa, nhiều khi học viên có thể tự sửa cho nhau mà không cần giáo viên can thiệp Nếu học viên không tìm ra giải pháp hợp lý, tôi sẽ đưa ra ý kiến của mình.

Cô vừa nhắc đến lỗi có thể chấp nhận được, cô có thể làm rõ hơn về những lỗi này được không ạ?

Trong quá trình giảng dạy, tôi nhận thấy rằng có nhiều lỗi trong kỹ năng Nói của học viên có thể được bỏ qua, đặc biệt là lỗi về từ vựng Nếu học viên sử dụng từ ngữ chưa chính xác hoặc chưa hay nhưng vẫn đạt được mục đích giao tiếp, tôi sẽ không quá khắt khe Thực tế, phần lớn các trường hợp như vậy đều được chấp nhận.

4 CÂU HỎI 4: Khi chữa lỗi, thầy/ cô thường chỉ ra trực tiếp lỗi sai cho học viên hay gợi ý một cách gián tiếp để học viên tự nhận ra lỗi sai?

Định dạng
Số trang	71
Dung lượng	1,36 MB