Quan niệm của giáo viên về việc sửa lỗi nói cho học sinh và thực tế sửa lỗi trên lớp

1

Chapter I: Introduction
1. Rationale of the Study
Recently, research interest in the teachers’ implicit theories that underlie their
classroom behaviors has been increasing. It is commonly agreed that each teacher
possesses a variety of personal knowledge about pedagogical issues including beliefs about
how to plan the lesson, how to teach, how to correct learners’ errors, ect. Continuous
research on this area has showed that what the teachers do in the classroom is governed by
what they believe and these beliefs often serve as a filter through which instructional
judgments and decisions are made (Shavelson and Stern, 1981). Thus, attention to
teachers’ beliefs can inform educational practices in the ways that prevailing research has
not and is essential to improving their professional preparation and teaching practices
(Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992) also affirms that the study of beliefs is critical to educational
practices. She argues that beliefs may be "the clearest measure of a teacher’s professional
growth" (p.54) and that understanding them is "instrumental in determining the quality of
interaction one finds among teachers in a given school" (p.85). Rokeach (1968) concludes
that beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions made by individuals in the course of
their lifetime.
Within TESOL, there has been growing realization of a need to understand, and
account for the underlying belief systems of language teachers and the impact these have
on their classroom practices (Farrell, 2005). However, in Vietnam to our knowledge there
is relatively little research in teacher beliefs and classroom practices. This gave me the
desire to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding
oral error correction, which has been a focus of pedagogical strategies since the late 1960s
when the trend away from the audiolingualism has contributed to a renewed interest in the
use of language as communication.
2. Statement of the Problem
Oral error correction is a complex issue, and the teacher seems to correct oral errors
intuitively. However, much of the research on teachers’ beliefs has so far focused on the

2

areas of science, math education or on reading while oral error correction has been poorly
explored. This study is, therefore, an attempt to tap into this important and complex
problem.
3. Aims of the Study
The purpose of the study is to find out the beliefs and classroom practices of an
experienced teacher regarding oral error correction in an Upper Secondary School in Bac
Giang Province. The area where there is a discrepancy or consistency between teachers’
beliefs and classroom practices and the factors that may influence the teacher actual
classroom practices were also be further investigated in this study.
4. Research Questions
- What are the teacher’s beliefs about oral error correction?
- To what extent do her approaches to oral error correction reflect her stated beliefs?
4. Research Method
The study employed the qualitative single case study approach to explore the
teacher beliefs and classroom practices regarding oral error correction. The data was
collected through interviews and classroom observations. The data collected was then
analyzed to gain the insights and implications of the study.
5. Scope of the Study
A study on teacher beliefs of oral error correction and classroom practices is such a
broad theme that cannot be wholly discussed within the frame work of this paper. Thus, in
this minor thesis an attempt to only one specific and commonly practiced aspect to oral
error correction will discussed: beliefs of the way of oral error correction and actual
classroom practices of an experienced English language teacher in 11
th
form class in an
Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province and the factors that may affect the teacher
in her classroom practices.

3

6. Significance of the Study
Ways of oral error correction and the relationship of these with classroom practices
have often been neglected by teachers so far, the answer to the research questions hopes to
provide insights into both what teacher believed and actually did in the classroom, teachers
then can be aware of the importance of accessing teachers' beliefs and comparing these
beliefs with actual classroom practices “when teachers become more aware of how they
teach and how their students learn, then the whole educational process becomes more
enjoyable and meaningful for the stakeholders: teachers and students”( Miler , 2004). It is
also hoped that this study can act as a catalyst in enabling other teachers to reflect on and
examine their own beliefs about their ways of oral error correction.
7. Definition of Terminologies.
Teachers’ Beliefs
Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and
professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to
reality. Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held. (Adapted from Murphy, 1998)
The reason for choosing this definition of teacher beliefs will be presented in the
literature review of the study
The Notion of Errors
The notion of errors is complicated by its nature. Different researchers may have
different concepts of errors. It depends upon different considerations or in other words it
depends on how language is approached.
Corder (1975) states “ if language as a code, a set of rules for generating
syntactically, phonologically and semantically well-formed sentences , then a breach of the
code, i.e. a use of wrong rules or misuse of the right rules may , but not necessarily, result
in superficially ill-formed sentences”.(p.123)

4

In this sense, language is formally approached: a superficially ill-formed sentence
is no doubt erroneous. However, it is unnecessary for any superficially well-formed
sentence to come up as non-erroneous. If in a situation where communication is preferred
the criterion should be what impedes communication, and it is known that there are many
sentences that are ill-formed but understandable to hearers or readers.
In informal settings, it is commonly believed that performance of native speakers is
often taken as the norm for correcting people errors. However, it is not always reliable
because native speakers speak variety of dialects. Take the example preferred by many
linguists “ who is your name” for illustration , the sentence is considered as an error in
British English but a good sentence in Maori English. So, “what is error” is a question that
can not be answered without taking into account some factors such as the standard of
performance or the norms being aimed at, the knowledge of the learners, the context, the
notion of “acceptability” and even the realistic assessment ( Mc Kating 1981)
In short, it is clear from these arguments that there is not always an agreement
among linguists and researchers on what is an error. This research studies the errors
committed by learners of English in the context of Vietnam where English is taught and
learnt as a foreign language. Thus, the norms on which error determination depends should
be understood as undisputedly the prescriptive English standard usage. There, of course,
exist in English a variety of dialects but its speakers recognize one of which as standard.
That is to say in this study any deviated sides of learner speech and writing that cannot
account for the English model of usage assumed by educated users should be considered
erroneous, or unacceptable. So the following contentions, which were adapted from Dulay
et al. (1982), will be the starting point in this thesis. Errors are understood as the flawed
side of learner speech and writing, those parts of conversation or composition that deviate
from English model of usage assumed by educated users.
Error verse Mistake
There exists in language teaching and learning a distinction between the term an
error and a mistake though linguists found it impossible to indicate any sharp

differentiation. The distinction resulted from the term “competence errors” and

5

“performance error”, to use Chomsky’s (1965) terms, in which the former is derived from
incomplete knowledge or inadequate competence of the target language, the later is caused
by some aspects of verbal performance such as lack of attention, fatigue or careless. That
point of view is later supported by Corder (ibid.) when he makes a distinction between
systematic errors i.e. those caused by the formulation of incorrect hypothesis about the
target language and non-systematic error i.e. those caused by “memory lapses, physical
states, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion”. However,
Duskova (1969) with her investigation of errors made by Czech learners of English in an
attempt to look for a reasonable answer discovered that the above –mentioned principle of
distinction was not reliable. She found that many recurrent systematic errors: failure to
express genitive relation or confusion of the passive of an active voice, ect reflected no
defects in knowledge at all. The explanation provided for these cases was the lack of
autonomy in rule application. Kielhofer cited in Schachter (1974) also supported this
point of view by stating that a large number of errors of performance might indicate the
lack of habit in using language skill, therefore lack of L2 competence of learners.
McKating, by giving one example of student getting things right in one paragraph
but wrong in context , implies that not all so –called “ careless” mistakes are caused by
carelessness. The learner may be unsure of the choice, so he just tries out the rules and
hopes to be right some of the time. He shows that the possibility to self correction will not
always work in distinguishing errors and mistakes. He shows cases where a student knows
that one of two forms is correct but uncertain which. When the teacher tells him that he has
made an error in the first place, he knows the other must be the right one and he corrects
the wrong one. It is not a proof that this error is really a lapse.
In addition, Corder (opcit.) though admits that the distinction between error and
mistake is by no mean easy, he claims that “mistakes are of no significance to the process
of language learning” even native speakers commit them as slip of the tongue or the pen.

While Johnson (1988 cited in Ha 2005) argues that if the word “mistake” is used to
describe the malformation due to processing inability under difficult operating condition,
then it may be true that a good percentage of our students’ malformations are mistakes and

6

not errors. In this case mistake correction becomes important in language teaching. It is
opposed to Corder’s idea that mistakes have no significance.
It is clear from these arguments that there is little agreement among linguists and
researchers on the distinction between these two terms which is by no mean clear cut.
Therefore, in this study I am in the support of Dulay et all (1982) on the point that. In
order to facilitate reference to deviations that have not yet been classified as performance
or competence errors, we do not restrict the term “error” to competence-based deviations.
We use “error” to refer to any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no
matter what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be. It therefore in this study
the terms error and mistake can be used interchangeably.

7

Chapter II: Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs of an experienced teacher in an
Upper Secondary school regarding beliefs about oral error correction and her actual
classroom practices. No studies were found by this review on this topic specifically. This
review will, therefore, begin by describing some perspectives on and techniques in oral
error correction. In the following paragraphs of this chapter, we will describe the nature of
beliefs and building a definition which will be used in the context of this study and finally
some previous studies about the teacher beliefs and classroom practices which is the focus
in this study will be briefly presented.
1. Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning.
Over the past fifty years, there has been a dramatic shift in the perception and

correction of learner errors in second and foreign language acquisition. Throughout the
1950s and the mid-1960s, when the audio-lingual approach to teaching foreign languages
was in full swing, learner errors were something to avoid. In his book, Language and
Language Learning, Nelson Brooks (1960 cited in Ha 2005) stated, “Like sin, error is to be
avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is expected” (p. 56). In this period, an
example of the specific guidelines for error correction appears in The Teachers’ Manual
for German, Level One, prepared by the Modern Language Materials Development Center
(1961), which states that teachers should correct all errors immediately and that the
students should be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own
mistakes.
Beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, however, studies in
Transformational-generative grammar, first-language acquisition, and cognitive
psychology have contributed to a trend away from audiolingualism (Shultz, 1996). In this
new paradigm of language teaching, instead of expecting students to produce error -free
sentences, students were encouraged to communicate in the target language. Furthermore,
producing errors came to be viewed as a natural and useful part of second-language
acquisition (Corder, 1973; Lange, 1977 cited in Ha, 2005), which could provide language
teachers with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching. As second-language errors

8

began to be perceived as a natural process of acquisition, teachers were consequently
discouraged from explicitly treating learner errors. Communicative approaches
downplayed the role of explicit error correction (Schultz, 1996). However, based on
increasing evidence that corrective feedback can indeed facilitate L2 acquisition ( Ellis
1989; Long 1983, among many), a growing number of researchers point out the
detrimental effect of “the lack of consistent and unambiguous feedback” (Allen et. al.
1990, p. 67) and call for a reevaluation of the negative view on error correction arguing
that error correction provides learners with negative input which might be essential for
mastery of a second language.

To summarize, there are two different schools of thoughts about learner errors :
one sees errors as a sin and need to be avoided and the other sees error as the essentiality
in mastering a language. Accordingly, there are different views toward error correction.
Some believe that error correction does improve the proficiency of language learner,
especially in case of errors which inhibit communication and appear frequently. Other
argues that error correction is not so important and expresses doubts about the
effectiveness of error correction. Their argument is that learners’ error are simply
indicative of a certain stage of development which will develop naturally into more
accurate and appropriate forms (Makino 1993 cited in Ha, 2005)
2. Techniques in Oral Error Correction.
Decisions about treatment of error will depend upon the stage of the lesson, the
activity, the type of mistake made, and the particular student who is making that mistake
(Harmer, 2001). A distinction is often made between accuracy and fluency. We need to
decide whether a particular activity in the classroom is designed to expect the students’
complete accuracy as in the study of a piece of grammar, a pronunciation exercise, or
some vocabulary work for example - or whether we are asking the students to use the
language as fluently as possible. We need to make a clear difference between ‘non-
communicative’ and ‘communicative’ activities whereas the former are generally intended
to ensure correctness; the latter are designed to improve language fluency (Harmer, 2001).
The received view has been that when students are involved in accuracy work, it is part of
the teacher’s function to point out and correct the mistakes the students are making. That is

9

a stage where the teacher stops the activity to make the correction. During communicative
activities, however, it is generally felt that teachers should not interrupt students in mid-
flow to point out a grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation errors, since to do so interrupts
the communication and correspondence an activity back to the study of language form or
precise meaning. Indeed, according to one view of teaching and learning, speaking
activities in the classroom act as a switch to help learners transfer ‘learnt’ language to the

‘acquired’ store (Ellis 1982) or a trigger, forcing students to think carefully about how best
to express the meanings they wish to convey (Swain 1985: 249). Part of the value of such
activities lies in the various attempts that students have to make to get their meanings
across; processing language for communication is, in this view, the best way of processing
language for acquisition. Teacher intervention in such circumstances can raise stress levels
and stop the acquisition process in its tracks (Harmer, 2001). Therefore error correction
during accuracy work should be clearly different from error correction during fluency
work. The following techniques for error correction during accuracy and fluency are
suggested by Harmer ( 2001)
2.1 Correction during Accuracy Work
Correction is usually made up of two distinct stages. In the first, teachers show
students that a mistake has been made, and in the second, if necessary, they help the
students to do something about it. The first set of techniques we need to be aware of, then,
is devoted to showing incorrectness. These techniques are only really beneficial for what
we are assuming to be language slips rather than embedded errors. The students are being
expected to be able to correct themselves once the problem has been pointed out. If they
cannot do this, however, we need to move on to alternative techniques.
2.1.1. Showing incorrectness: this can be done in a number of different ways.
Repeating: Here we can ask the student to repeat what they have said, perhaps by saying
Again? Or more polite “would you please repeat that ? ” or another alternative “what”
which coupled with intonation and expression, will indicate that something is not clear.
Echoing: this can be a precise way of pin-pointing an error. We repeat what the student
has said emphasizing the part of the utterance that was wrong,

10

e.g: *Flight 309 GO to Paris? (said with a questioning intonation). It is an extremely
efficient way of showing incorrectness during accuracy work.
Statement and question: we can, of course, simply say That’s not quite right, or
Dopeople think that’s correct? to indicate that something has not quite worked.

Expression: when we know our classes well, a simple facial expression or a gesture may
be enough to indicate that something does not quite work. This needs to be done with care
as the wrong expression or gesture can, in some circumstances, appear to be mocking or
cruel.
Finger-counting can be used whenever something is missing , whether it is a sound,
a syllable in a word, or a word in sentence. Edge suggests that fingers should be counted
from right to left so that it looks like left to right to from the students’ point of view, easing
their recognition of the mistake.
Furthermore, following a recent trend that laces greater emphasis on
suprasegmentals, gestures can be used for correcting mistakes with stress and intonation(
edge). Teachers can tap fingers on a desk to show stress in a word or in a sentence.
Nodding heads or clapping out the rhythm of a word or a sentence to indicate proper stress
may also prove very helpful.
Schachter introduces six hand signals for use with high-intermediate level learners:
- The first, a sports time-out signal, indicates an error of tense, aspect, or voice
- the second, a triangle made with the forefingers and middle fingers of both hands
shows an agreement error.
- the third, two fingers as in the “ peace” or “ victory” sign, show an error in
pluralization.
- the fourth, a letter P with one hand making the stem while the other hand makes
the circle at the top, signals a preposition use error. ( from the teacher’s point of view, the
P will be reversed)

11

- the fifth, a circle made with thumbs and forefingers indicates a word order error.
- the sixth, crossed forefingers, alerts students to an article error.
Hinting or Cueing : a quick way of helping students to activate rules they already know
(but which they have temporarily ‘disobeyed’) is to give a quiet hint. We might just say the
word ‘tense’ to make them think that perhaps they should have used the past simple rather

than the present perfect. We could say ‘countable’ to make them think about a concord
mistake they have made. Such hints are believed to provide a positive stimulus, and this
kind of promoting almost always gives excellent result. ( Holley and King, 497). However,
this kind of hinting depends upon the students and the teacher sharing linguistic terms
which, when whispered to students, will help them to correct themselves.
Reformulation or Remodeling: an underrated teacher technique is for the teacher to
repeat what the
student has said correctly, reformulating the sentence, but without making a big issue of it,
for example: Student: I would not have arrived late if I heard the alarm clock.
Teacher: If I had heard…
Student : if I had heard the alarm clock.
Many teachers’ corrections of phonological errors are simply brief modeling of
correct pronunciation. In all the procedures above, teachers hope that students will be able
to correct themselves once the teacher has indicated that something was wrong. However,
where students do not know or understand what the problem is the teacher will want to
help the students to get it right.
2.1.2 Getting It Right:
If the student is unable to correct herself, or respond to reformulation, we need to
focus on the correct version in more detail. We can say the correct version emphasising the
part where there is a problem (e.g. Flight 309 GOES to Paris) before saying the sentence
normally (e.g. Flight 309 goes to Paris), or we can say the incorrect part correctly (e.g. Not

12

‘go’. Listen, ‘goes’). If necessary we can explain the grammar (e.g. We say ‘I go’, ‘you
go’, ‘we go’, but for ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘it’ we say ‘goes’, for example ‘He goes to Paris’, or
‘Flight 309 goes to Paris’), or a lexical issue (e.g. We use ‘juvenile crime’ when we talk
about crime committed by children; a ‘childish crime’ is an act that is silly because it’s like
the sort of thing a child would do). We will then ask the student to repeat the utterance
correctly. Sometimes we ask students to correct each other. We might say “Can anyone

help Tom/ Mary?” and hope that other students know the correct version of the utterance -
after which the student who made the mistake should be able to say the sentence, question,
or phrase accurately.
2.2 Feedback during Fluency Work
The way in which we respond to students when they speak in a fluency activity will
have a significant bearing not only on how well they perform at the time but also on how
they behave in fluency activities in the future. We need to respond to the content not just
the language form; we need to be able to give solutions to the problems which our
students have encountered or are encountering, but these are things we may well do after
the event, not during it. Our tolerance of error in fluency sessions will be much greater than
it is during more controlled sessions (Harmer, 2001). This is a place to start giving student
a litter freedom. The teacher should walk around the class quickly to make sure that all the
students are working properly. When hearing mistakes, she makes a note of them. This is
important information for the teacher.( Edge 1997). Nevertheless, there are times when we
may wish to intervene during fluency activities, just as there are ways we can respond to
our students once such activities are over.
Gentle Correction:
If communication breaks down completely during a fluency activity, we may well
have to intervene. If our students cannot think of what to say, we may want to prompt them
forwards. If this is just the right moment to point out a language feature we may offer a
form of correction. Provided we offer this help with tact and discretion there is no reason
why such interventions should not be helpful. Gentle correction can be offered in a number
of ways. We might simply reformulate what the student has said in the expectation that

13

they will pick up our reformulation even though it hardly interrupts their speech, for
example:
Student:
I am not agree with you

Teacher:
I don’t agree
Student:
I don’t agree with you because I think
It is even possible that students can learn something new in this way when they are
making an attempt at some language they are not quite sure of. We can use a number of
other accuracy techniques of showing incorrectness too, such as echoing and expression, or
even say You shouldn’t say X, say Y, etc. But because we do it gently and because we do
not move on to a ‘getting it right’ stage - our intervention is less disruptive than a more
accuracy-based procedure would be.
Over-use of even gentle correction will, however, be counter-productive. By
constantly interrupting the flow of the activity, we may bring it to a standstill. What we
have to judge, therefore, is whether a quick reformulation or prompt may help the
conversation move along without intruding too much or whether, on the contrary, it is not
especially necessary and has the potential to get in the way of the conversation.
Recording Mistakes:
During fluency work we frequently act as observers, watching and listening to
students so that we can give feedback afterwards. Such observation allows us to give good
feedback to our students on how well they have performed, always remembering that we
want to give positive as well as negative feedback. One of the problems of giving feedback
after the event is that it is easy to forget what students have said. Most teachers, therefore,

14

write down points they want to refer to later, and some like to use charts or other forms of
categorization to help them do this, as in the following example:
Grammar
Words and phrases
Pronunciation
Appropriacy

In each column, we can note down things we heard, whether they are particularly good or
especially incorrect or inappropriate. We might write down errors such as *according to
my opinion in the words and phrases column, or *I haven’t been yesterday in the grammar
column; we might record phoneme problems or stress issues in the pronunciation column
and make a note of places where students disagreed too tentatively in the appropriacy
column.
We can also record students’ language performance on audio or videotape. In this
situation the students might be asked to design their own charts like the one above so that
when they listen or watch they too will be recording more and less successful language
performance in categories which make remembering what they heard easier. Another
alternative is to divide students into groups and have each group watch for something
different - for example, one group focuses on pronunciation, one group listens for the use
of appropriate or inappropriate phrases, while a third looks at the effect of the physical
paralinguistic features that are used. If teachers want to involve students more - especially
if they have been listening to audiotape or watching the video - they can ask them to write
up any mistakes they think they heard on the board. This can lead to a discussion in which
the class votes on whether they think the mistakes really are mistakes.
Another possibility is for the teacher to transcribe parts of the recording for future
study. However, this takes up a lot of time! After the event: when we have recorded
student performance we will want to give feedback to the class. We can do this in a
number of ways. We might want to give an assessment of an activity, saying how well we
thought the students did in it, getting the students to tell us what they found easiest or most

15

difficult. We can put some of the mistakes we have recorded up on the board and ask
students firstly if they can recognize the problem, and then whether they can put it right.
Or, as in the example above, we can write both correct and incorrect words, phrases, or
sentences on the board and have the students decide which is which. When we write
examples of what we heard on the board, it is not generally a good idea to say who made

the mistakes since this may expose them in front of their classmates. Indeed, we will
probably want to concentrate most on those mistakes which were made by more than one
person. These can then lead on to quick teaching and re-teaching sequences which arrive
opportunistically in this way . Another possibility is for teachers to write individual notes
to students, recording mistakes they heard from those particular students with suggestions
about where they might look for information about the language in dictionaries, grammar
books
3. The Nature of Beliefs
Studies of many researchers (Shavelson and Stern, 1981; Pajares, 1992;
Kagan,1992; Farrell, 2005, ect) on teacher’s beliefs have proved that beliefs play an
important role in improving teachers’ professional preparation and teaching practices.
However, relatively little attention has been paid to this important area. This may be due,
as Pajares (1992) explains, to the fact that belief does not lend itself easily to investigation
and is difficult to define. In the same vein, Pintrich (1990) states while beliefs have been
described as the most valuable psychological construct to teacher education they are also
one of the more difficult to define. More specifically, Pajares argues that "the difficulty on
studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional problems, poor
conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures" (p.307).
In his review of the research on the topic, Pajares( 1992) refers to beliefs as a
"messy construct", one that has not always been accorded much precision and which
"travels under the alias" of: "attitudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology,
perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit
theories, personal theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice
practical principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name
but a few that can be found in the literature” (p.309).

16

Pajares explains that confusion with the concept centres around the distinction
between knowledge and belief. However, it is not so much that knowledge differs from

beliefs, but that beliefs themselves constitute a form of knowledge. In his attempts to
characterize beliefs, Nespor (1987) provides some distinctions between the two. While
knowledge often changes, beliefs are "static" and whereas knowledge can be evaluated or
judged, such is not the case with beliefs as there is usually a lack of consensus about how
they are to be evaluated. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any clear rules for
determining the relevance of beliefs to real world events. Thomson (1992), in contrast,
believes that individuals can evaluate their beliefs “ beliefs systems are described as
dynamic in nature, undergoing change and restructuring as individuals evaluate their
beliefs against their experiences”( p 32)
While there are no doubt other distinctions that could be made between the two
constructs, a better understanding may be gained by exploring the relationship between the
two. Kagan (1992) refers to beliefs as a "particularly provocative form of personal
knowledge" (p 32) and argues that most of a teacher’s professional knowledge can be
regarded more accurately as belief. According to Kagan, this knowledge grows richer and
more coherent, as a teacher’s experience in classrooms grows and thus forms a highly
personalized pedagogy or beliefs system that actually constrains the teacher’s perception,
judgment, and behavior. In terms of beliefs as being personal knowledge, Kagan explains:
"A teacher’s knowledge of his or her profession is situated in three important ways:
- in context (it is related to specific groups of students),
- in content (it is related to particular academic material to be taught),
- in person (it is embedded within the teacher’s unique belief system)" (p.74).
Like Clark (1988) who equates ‘implicit theories’ with beliefs, Nespor (1987)
explains how beliefs become personal pedagogies or theories to guide teachers' practices:
teachers’ beliefs play a major role in defining teaching tasks and organizing the
knowledge and information relevant to those tasks. But why should this be so? Why
wouldn’t research-based knowledge or academic theory serve this purpose just as well?

17

The answer suggested here is that the contexts and environments within which teachers

work, and many of the problems they encounter, are ill-defined and deeply entangled, and
that beliefs are peculiarly suited for making sense of such contexts. (p.324)
Rust (1994) describes beliefs as socially-constructed representational systems.
These systems then are used to interpret and act upon the world. Since beliefs are generally
contextualized and associated with a particular situation or circumstance (Kagan, 1992), it
is not surprising that systems of beliefs may contradict each other (Ennis, 1994).
Furthermore, wide variance can be found among the systems of beliefs of different
teachers from within a similar group (Bussis, Chittenden, & Armel, 1976). Wehling and
Charters (1969) discuss beliefs in terms of complex organizations consisting of discrete
sets of inter-related concepts. They include beliefs in the category of representations, or
cognitive maps of the external world which serve as mediators for experiencing and
responding to reality. This conception of beliefs fits with the notion of beliefs as personal
knowledge, personal pedagogies and implicit theories.
Munby (1982) also equates implicit theories with teachers' beliefs. Clark and
Peterson (1986) in their review of the literature on teachers’ thought processes, argue that
teachers' theories and beliefs represent a rich store of knowledge. Teachers make sense of
their complex world and respond to it by forming a complex system of personal and
professional knowledge and theories which, as Kagan (1992) describes, are often tacit and
unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms and the material to be taught
For the purposes of this study, that is investigating teacher beliefs in a particular
context and relating to small number of students with specific materials to be taught, the
definition will be built based on some selected elements described in this review of the
nature of beliefs as follow
Beliefs represent teachers' personal knowledge.
Beliefs represent implicit theories.
Beliefs serve as mediators for experiencing and responding to the environment.
Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held.

18

Accordingly, the following definition which adapted from Murphy (1998) will be
used as the working version in this study.
Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and
professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to
reality. Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held.
4. Research on Teachers’ Beliefs in Second Language Teacher Education
In the area of language teaching and learning, teacher beliefs have been examined
to see how personal beliefs and knowledge of the pedagogical systems of teaching have
informed the instructional practices and decisions of teachers of English as a second
language (e.g., Borg, 2003; Burns, 1992; Golombek, 1998). In addition, the study of
teacher beliefs , as Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) have pointed out, "forms part of
the process of understanding how teachers conceptualize their work" (p. 42). To our
knowledge, there have been a number of studies on teacher beliefs and classroom practices
for example Farrell, 1999; Ng & Farrell, 2003; Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001; Yim,
1993; Farrel , 2005; Johnson, 1991.
Studies by both Ng & Farrell, (2003) and Yin (1993) investigated the extent to
which teachers’ theoretical beliefs influenced their classroom practices, and found
evidences to suggest that what teachers say and do in the classroom are governed by their
beliefs.
Farrell (1999) examined the belief system of pre-service teachers of English
grammar in terms of its influence on teaching practices and found evidence to suggest that
these beliefs may be resistant to change. Similarly, Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001)
discovered (from administering a self-report questionnaire to participants in an in-service
course) that although many stated they followed a communicative approach to teaching,
"many of the respondents still hold firmly to the belief that grammar is central to language
learning and direct grammar teaching is needed by their EFL/ESL students" (p. 54).
Farrel (2005) in his exploratory case study adopted a qualitative case study
approach to investigate the relationship between beliefs and actual classroom practices

19

with regards to grammar teaching of two experienced teachers of English language in a
primary school in Singapore. Data collection of the study occurred over a period of two
months. Sources of data included one scheduled pre-study interview with each of the two
teachers, two non-participatory observations of the teachers' classes with pre-lesson and
post-lesson interviews, as well as a collection of random samples of their students' written
work. The results show that Daphne, one of the subjects of the study, has a strong sense of
convergence between stated beliefs and actual classroom practices. Having herself
experienced English language learner, learning by explicit instruction on the rules of
grammar; Daphne firmly believes that her students can also benefit from this overt
approach to grammar teaching. Her actual classroom practices of providing explicit
explanations and instructions on grammar items and structures were congruent with her
belief in her "traditional approach to grammar teaching." The result also showed that
Daphne’s case appears to be in conflict with the Johnson's (1999) suggestion that many
language teachers are adamant about not recreating the same type of formal language
learning experiences they had when they were students. Not only was Daphne amenable to
recreating her own learning experience, she was committed to it because of the benefits
that she perceived the approach would hold for her students in the Singapore education
system.
For Velma, the other subject of the study, her beliefs in a more indirect, or covert,
approach to grammar teaching partially matched some her actual classroom practices.
During the pre-study interview, Velma expressed the belief that grammar teaching should
be integrated into speaking, writing and reading. In fact, this was observed during Velma's
Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, where students were actively discussing and writing
poetry and short stories, rather than receiving explicit instruction on adverbs of manner.
Even though it may seem that Velma's beliefs and practices converge, the researcher noted
some divergence also. For example, during Velma's Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, she
made explicit grammar explanations and the activities were not contextualized into
meaningful communicative situations. In fact, her grammar teaching was not incidental but
structured and prescriptive. In short, Farrell (2005) concluded that teachers do have a set of

complex beliefs that are sometimes not match their classroom practices.

20

Johnson (1991) in an investigation into the extent, to which teachers' theoretical
beliefs influence their classroom practices, used three measures to identify ESL teachers'
beliefs: a descriptive account of what teachers believe to constitute an ideal ESL classroom
context, a lesson plan analysis task, and a Beliefs Inventory. In the sample of teachers
studied she identified three different methodological positions: a skills-based approach
which views language as consisting of four discrete language skills; a rules-based approach
which views language as a process of rule-governed creativity; and a function-based
approach which focuses on the use of authentic language within situational contexts and
which seeks to provide opportunities for functional and communicative language use in the
classroom. The majority of the teachers in the sample held clearly defined beliefs which
consistently reflected one of these three methodological approaches. Teachers representing
each theoretical orientation were then observed while teaching and the majority of their
lessons were found to be consistent with their theoretical orientation. A teacher who
expressed a skill based theoretical orientation generally presented lessons in which the
focus was primarily on skill acquisition. A teacher with the rule-based orientation tended to
employ more activities and exercises which served to reinforce knowledge of grammatical
structures. She constantly referred to grammar even during reading and writing activities,
for example, by asking students to identify a key ' grammatical structure and to explain the
rule which governed its use. The function-based teachers, on the other hand, selected
activities which typically involved the learners' personal expression, teaching word
meaning and usage through a meaningful context, reading activities which focused on the
concepts or ideas within the text, and context-rich writing activities where students were
encouraged to express their ideas without attention to grammatical correctness.
Despite the increased levels of interest in the area of language teachers’ beliefs,
there have not been many case study investigations that have focused on the beliefs of
experienced language teachers regarding oral error correction (especially in the context

of the case study reported in this paper). Thus, the case study presented in this paper is one
attempt to add to the literature on this important topic.
In conclusion, the literature considered in this review reminds us of the significant
perspectives on error correction and techniques in oral error correction which have so far

21

been neglected by teachers as well as the importance of beliefs in understanding the
behind-the-scenes realities of what happens in the classroom. More importantly, the review
provides us with a preliminary perspective on how teachers’ beliefs and their actual
classroom practices interrelate. Many of these studies will no doubt serve as useful points
of comparison and as a means of understanding some of the beliefs in the present study.

22

Chapter III: Methodology of the Study
I. Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province.
Most of the teachers in school are novice thus they have not got much experience in
teaching but they are very enthusiastic and creative. The teacher in this study is Ms
Nguyn th Hà (pseudo-name). She is 35 with 9 years teaching experience. She is
considered to be the only and the most experienced teacher in English group in the Upper
Secondary School. She has got a BA degree in the field of Methodology of TEFL of
college of foreign languages (VNU). She is eager to participate in the study and very
helpful in helping the researcher to complete the study.
All students in the school are not major in English. Most of them start studying
English at 10
th
form however there are still few who have four years studying English at
secondary school. In general, students’ knowledge of English is not good and they are also

not very positive toward learning English as I have been teaching English in the school for
several years and I looked at their score at the end of the school year. However, there are
still some classes which include students who are relatively good at English and interested
in English learning. Two classes which I observed were 11A6 & 11A9. Students in 11A6
are relatively good at English but students in 11A9 are not. Moreover, nearly all students
were born in farmer families whose living standards are not high. Beside going to school,
they have to help parents to work. This may affect students’ learning as well as their
attitude toward English learning , the language of the people too far away from them.
In addition, the school is located in a rural area where people’s living standards as
well as their awareness are generally not very high and the condition for teaching and
learning is not very convenient. This may affect the teachers in updating or getting their
professional information.
In the academic school year 2006-2007 when the study was conducted, 10th form
students study the text book “New Ting Anh 10” which were published by Ministry of
Education and Training. 11
th
form students, whose English learning was observed by the
researcher, study the text book “ Old Ting Anh 11”. The “Old Ting Anh 11” text

23

book was designed for beginner of English and written following the situational approach
in foreign language teaching and learning, which was popular in 1970s in western society,
which focused much on the spoken language and speaking skill. The content and design
of the book seem to be out of date, that is why the “New Ting Anh 10” was introduced
in 2006, and then the “New Ting Anh 11”, “ New Ting Anh 12” is introducing in the
following school years.
2. Method of the Study
This part describes the research method used to explore the beliefs and classroom
practices of a teacher in an Upper Secondary School regarding oral error correction. The

methodology used is one geared toward the research questions in an attempt to understand
the particular phenomenon which is being studied (Leedy, 2001). As such the study
employed a single case methodology to answer the research questions. The following
paragraphs will describe the rationale for choosing the methodology as well as the
specifics about the methodology that was employed.
2.1. Rationale for Choosing a Qualitative Case Study.
2.1.1. Quantitative vs Qualitative Methodology and Rationale for Choosing
Qualitative Research
In determining the appropriate methodology to use in this research, the first
question that had to be answered was “ is this research qualitative or quantitative in
nature?”. Using Leedy and Ormrod’s ( 2001) table, (see table 1) as a foundation making
this determination, there are five general questions that can be used to determine if the
research is quantitative or qualitative in nature.





24

Table1: Selection of Methodological Approach
Question Quantitative Qualitative
What is the purpose of
the research?


What is the nature of the
research process?

What are the methods of
data collection?

What is the form of
reasoning used in
analysis?
How are findings
communicated?
To explain and predict
To confirm and validate
To test theory

Focused
Known variable
Established guidelines
Static design
Context-free
Detached view
Representative, large sample
Standardized instruments
Deductive analysis
Numbers
Statistics, aggregated data

Formal voice, scientific style

To describe and explain
To explore and interpret

Build theory

Holistic
Unknown variables
Flexible guidelines
Emergent design
Context bound
Personal view
Informative, small sample
Observations, interviews
Inductive analysis
Words
Narrative

Personal voice, scientific
style

The first question relates to the purpose of the research. Quantitative research
attempts to explain what is happening and to predict future events based upon testing
theory. The qualitative researcher, instead, attempts to build theory through the exploration
and interpretation of the data. By exploring and interpreting the relationship between the
beliefs and classroom practices of a teacher in an upper secondary school, this study was
an attempt to build theory relating to teacher’s beliefs literature thus it meets the criteria for
qualitative research.
The second question addresses the nature of the research process. Series of actions
of quantitative research are very rigid and exact in nature while qualitative research is more

25

flexible and adaptable. Thus, the researcher can modify the data collection techniques to

allow for information from multiple sources or information that was not anticipated and
therefore provide a holistic view of the topic. In this study, interviews and observations
were the instruments for collecting data. Questions used in the interviews, specially the
post interview were adaptable to the classroom observation in order for the researcher to
obtain a full understanding of the phenomena. Moreover, the study was limited in a certain
context that is the context in 11
th
form in an Upper Secondary school regarding oral error
correction of a teacher. Thus, the second criterion for qualitative research was met.
The third question addresses the methods of data collection. Qualitative data
collection methods do not focus on standardized data collection instrument. The research
can be completed using a small sample of interviewees who have knowledge of the
phenomenon being studied. This study attempted to study only one single case with only
one person being the interviewer. Moreover, observations and interviews were both used as
the instruments for data collection. Thus, using the qualitative approach is appropriate.
The fourth question addresses type of analysis, deductive or inductive reasoning
that will be employed in the research. In quantitative research, deductive reasoning used as
the research begins with a hypothesis or theory and then, based upon the data, draws
logical conclusions. The qualitative researcher, however, makes observations, interviews to
collect the data and then draws inferences regarding the data using inductive reasoning.
That was also the form of reasoning in the analysis of this study thus the study must be the
qualitative.
The final question addresses how the research findings will be communicated with
the audience. The quantitative report will reference numbers, statistics and be very formal
and scientific in nature while the qualitative report is more narrative or literary in style
attempting to capture the entire essence of the phenomenon. As there was no statistical
value that was used in this study to explore the beliefs and classroom practices of the
teacher, data was categorized and coded under themes or patterns thus the way the findings
of the study communicated with the audience is the typical of qualitative research.