The study: Spoken error correction in Thanh Binh 1 high school a case study

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1. Motivation for the study
One of the most crucial factors in keeping up with the development of society
and the need of communication in the present day is the acquisition of at least a
foreign language, especially English because English is the language of
globalization, international communication, commerce, the media and pop
culture. English is also the most widespread language on the earth (The
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006b). English is used widely in public or private
sphere in more than 100 countries all over the world (The Columbia
Encyclopedia, 2006d). Five thousand newspapers i.e. more than half of the
newspapers published in the world are published in English (Yamaguchi, 2002
c). English learners can also update their knowledge faster and more effectively
than others in different areas such as academic, science, technology because most
of the information and knowledge in these areas are transferred in English. “Over
70% of the world‟s scientists read English (Hasman, 2007 c). “Following World
War II, the economic and cultural influence of the United States increased and
English

permeated

other

cultures,

chiefly

through

development

to

telecommunications technology and became the lingua franca of the world”
(Crystal, 1997 a; Brutt-Griffer, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2003; McKay, 2003; Llurda,
2004; and Ha, 2005 a). In sum, the role of English language acquisition is more
and more important.
However, the process of English acquisition is not easy and ideal as the benefits
that the language brings to learners. They must make great efforts to face not
only some visible difficulties such as a large number of vocabularies, using
learned words in writing speaking effectively and remembering difficult
grammar structures as well as using it in suitable situations but also the
unexpected and unrecognizable challenge that is making errors. Although
learners try to study well, making errors during the learning process is natural
and unavoidable. This “more tolerant modern approach” is based on the fact that
errors are normal and unavoidable during the leaning process (Ancker, 2000b).


2

Gass and Selinker (2001) also write, though errors are “likely to occur
repeatedly, they “are not recognized by the learner” (p.102). The fact is that
errors are natural and unavoidable, so the role of teachers to correct students‟
errors is very necessary and important.
Together with other kinds of errors, spoken errors are one of the most notable
errors that need to be effectively corrected by teachers because English learners
want to use English for communication well. First and foremost, their spoken

errors must be corrected. Furthermore, having too many spoken errors will make
communication activities unsuccessful. Therefore, when teachers can provide
students with some effective corrections for their errors, that will not only help
students find out errors and minimize them but also contribute to make students
feel confident and be able to speak English correctly time by time.
In fact, spoken error correction is necessary and useful, but the effectiveness and
helpfulness of spoken error correction completely depend on not only what
correction techniques teachers apply in teaching but also how the correction
techniques are used, whether they are appropriately used or not, and when these
correction techniques should be used. In order to know more about the reality of
teachers‟ correction ways and check whether the used ways are appropriate or
not, and suggest some useful correction techniques. Therefore, I put my attempt
to do the thesis, namely “SPOKEN ERROR CORRECTION IN THANH BINH
1 HIGH SCHOOL - A CASE STUDY”.

2. Aims of the study
The study is to observe teachers‟ ways dealing with spoken errors and compare
whether their used ways correspond with theory of error correction techniques in
methodology or not and suggest some implications and techniques for error
correction.

3. Research methods
Interviews and observations are used to collect data. Documentary analysis is
also exploited.


3

The first used instrument in the study was a questionnaire for interviewing.
Interviewing questions were designed to obtain many different answers and

attitudes of teachers about spoken error correction, about the correction time,
correction techniques, and necessities of the corrections. To strengthen the reality
of the study, also at that time, five observations on five accidentally chosen
lessons were carried with five different classes in order that the collected data
were able to reflect variously spoken errors corrections with different classes and
teachers.
The data collected are grouped into themes and the compared against the theory
of correction techniques in methodology textbooks.

4. Scope of the study
This study is limited to four English teachers and 178 students at Thanh Binh 1
High School, Thanh Binh District, Dong Thap Province. The study was
implemented in this school from December 4th, 2011 to April 2012.

5. Significance of the study
This thesis may help teachers identify their used correction ways are effective
and appropriate or not, and help them find more effective ways to correct
students‟ errors. Teachers may also pay more attention to choosing what
effective techniques to correct students‟ spoken errors and choosing when and
how they should give corrections. It may not only make students minimize their
errors but also learn from their errors and be able use English language better in
communication thank to some effective and useful spoken errors correction
techniques suggested.

6. Related previous studies
Through the research process, there have been two studies related to the thesis
“SPOKEN ERROR CORRECTION IN THANH BINH 1 HIGH SCHOOL - A
CASE STUDY”.

4

In the study “ CONCEPTIONS OF ORAL ERROR CORRECTION: A
CASE STUDY OF TEACHER‟S BEFIEF AND CLASSROOM” by Duong
Thi Dung, She focused on finding out teachers‟ beliefs in correcting students‟
oral errors. Moreover, the study also recognized the reality of classroom practices
of an experienced teacher regarding oral error correction. There is also
identification between teachers‟ beliefs and classroom practices with oral error
correction. The study is carried in in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang
Province.
The other study is “A STUDY OF ERRORS IN ENGLISH IN RELATION
TO COGNITIVE STYLE AND CEREBRAL DOMINANCE” by Ikpreet
Singh. It researched the differences in errors in relation to cognitive styles. Its
aim is to study the errors committed by students of grade XI in written English
work in vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, functional grammar and translation.
Furthermore, the study collects opinions on the possible causes of errors by the
sample from experts and practicing teachers.

7. Organization of the thesis
The study comprises five parts. The first part is the introduction, which consists
of motivation of the study, aims of the study, scope of the study, research
methods, and significance of the study, related previous studies, and organization
of the study. The second part is the content of the study, which includes three
chapters. Chapter 1 is about the literature review. In Chapter 2, methodology,
research questions, participants, used instruments and research procedure of the
study are presented. The last chapter is the findings and discussion. In this
chapter, the results found answer to the research questions followed by some
discussions. The last part of the thesis is Conclusion consisting of overview of
the study, limitation of the study, some implications and suggestions for further
study.

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Concepts of errors
Concepts of errors are complicated because of its nature. Many different
researchers have different concepts of errors which depend on their different
considerations and the aspects of language they are approaching.
Making errors seems to be natural during the process of learning and teaching
foreign language. People consider it natural thing, so it should be avoided and
dealt with. It is similar to something that is unexpectedly forgotten during the
learning process. According to Dulay et al (cited in Duong Thi Dung), he states
that “Errors are understood as the flawed side of the learner speech and writing,
those part of conversation or composition that deviate from English model of
usage assumed by educated”.
However, “An error is a linguistic form or combination of forms which in the
same context and under similar conditions of production would, in all likelihood,
not be produced by the speakers' native speakers counterparts" (Lennon, 1991).
Other concept of errors is focused on and exploited by the difference between
linguistic form or combination of forms which are produced by native speakers
and produced by foreign language learners in the same situation.
Errors are also defined as something that learners haven‟t known or learned, so
learners‟ making errors seem as a matter of course. “Error is a systematic
deviation, when a learner has not learnt something and consistently gets it
wrong.” (Norrish, 1987:7). Researcher considers errors deviant ones that appear
while people are learning a foreign language. “Errors are systematic deviations

from the norms of the language being learned.” (Cunningworth, 1987:87).
Furthermore, errors are defined as something that learners meet when they are
trying to master their foreign language. Errors have been viewed as language
learners‟ speech that deviates from the model they are trying to master (Allwright
& Bailey, 1991, cited in Hyang-Sook Park). The two definitions are (1) error is a
systematic deviation, when a learner has not learnt something and consistently


6

gets it wrong‟ (Norrish, 1987:7) and (2) errors are systematic deviations from the
norms of the language being learned (Cunningworth, 1987:87).
In sum, various definitions of error have been presented by experts the
differences lies only on the ways they formulate, consider them and approach
language.
1.2. Types of errors
Errors are classified into many types in different ways focused by different
experts. Donald (2007 a) writes one way of categorizing errors is “by their
linguistic type.” “Errors can be classified as simply productive (spoken or
written) or receptive (faulty understanding).” (Donald, 2007 b). Chomsky (1986
b) points out that, errors are both receptive i.e. in listening and reading and
expressive i.e. in speaking and writing. Lengo (1995) also adds errors can be
“classified as „productive‟ and „receptive‟ ”. Productive errors are those which
occur in the language learner‟s utterances; and receptive or interpretive errors are
those whose result is the listener‟s misunderstanding of the speaker‟s intentions.
However, others categorize errors based on the names of the skill or areas in
which they are recognized, as, phonological errors (faulty pronunciation, stress,
etc.), semantic errors, lexical errors (word choice),

errors of substitution,

punctuation errors, orthographic errors, etc. (Haneda, 2005),

grammatical

(prepositions, articles, reported speed, objectives, clauses, irregular verbs, tenses,
possessive cases), syntactic (coordination, sentence structure, nouns and
pronouns, word order), semantic, and substance (mechanics, punctuation and
capitalization and spelling) organizational and discourse errors, etc. (Ali, 1996 a)
Errors have been further divided into overt and covert (Corder, 1971), errors of
correctness and appropriateness, as far as identification of error is concerned, and
into pre-systematic, systematic and post systematic regarding their description
(Corder, 1974).
Another division was made by Dulay and Burt in 1974 according to which there
are three types of error: the developmental ones which are based on the identity


7

hypothesis are similar to the errors made in Ll acquisition, interference errors and
unique errors which cannot fall into either of the above mentioned categories.
A further subdivision is introduced by Garman (1990: 109, cited in R. Jiménez
Catalán) to distinguish the skill and modality affected: speech production errors
from writing errors on one hand, and auditory comprehension errors from
reading errors on the other.

1.3. Error correction theory
Some people think that making errors is something negative, so it should be
corrected strictly and immediately. If people don‟t correct it in that way, it will
make bad results. However, in error correction theory stated by researchers,

making error is a naturally accepted thing This “more tolerant modern approach”
is based on the fact that errors are normal and unavoidable during the leaning
process (Ancker, 2000 b), so the corrections should be given naturally, which
makes learners feel more confident and encouraged in learning and joining in
study activities. Rivers (1976 b) states “If a teacher is a perfectionist and tends to
be too critical of every small error, the group or individual may perceive the task
as an impossible one….” Being angry is not appreciated in correcting learners‟
error because that makes learners feel sad and disappointed when they creating
errors. When correcting learners‟ errors, Ngo Ai Tuong states “Don‟t look be
angry. Be encouraging. Say nicely, „No, not quite right‟.” Hendrickson (1979)
concurs, “….correcting every error is counterproductive to learning a foreign
language.” Whereas, “when teachers tolerate some student errors, students often
feel more confident about using the target language than if all their errors are
corrected.” “Therefore teachers need to create a supportive classroom
environment in which their students can feel confident about expressing their
ideas and feelings freely without suffering the threat or embarrassment of having
each one of their oral and written errors corrected.” Walker (1973) for instance,
found in his study that students preferred not to be corrected for each speaking
and writing error because this practice undermined their confidence and forced
them to waste so much effort on details that they used to lose the overall ability


8

to use language. Thus, correction turns to be a way to break the flow of
conversation - especially when the teacher interrupts the student before he has
finished his utterance-, and it is also a way to lower the student‟s motivation as
only his failures and not his goals are highlighted.
Errors should be not only corrected with encouragement but also corrected
selectively, which means that teachers shouldn‟t correct all errors learners make.

the “recent theory on language acquisition and teaching methodology supports
the position that not all errors should be corrected, and those that are corrected
should usually not be „treated‟ immediately (Rivers, 1964, 1968 and 1976 a;
Holley and King, 1971; George, 1972

18 a; Chastain, 1976; Krashen, 1987;

Doff, 1988; Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Lewis, 1993; Nunan and Lamb, 1996;
Ur, 1996; Ancker, 2000 a).
Moreover, Correction‟s ways given to students‟ errors are not similar for
different skills. In fact, the features of each skill are different, so created errors in
this skill is not the same as those made in other skills. Ferris (1995, 1999 and
2002 b) “the policy of restraint and selectivity in the correction of spoken errors
may seem sensible indeed, but the same can‟t be said for the written errors.”
The time teachers give corrections is also emphasized in the error correction
theory. The question is whether teachers should deal with errors students made
immediately or wait until they finish with what they are trying to express. If
teachers give corrections at the time when students speaking, immediate error
corrections may stamp down a learner‟s willingness to speak in class at all
because it can interrupt the learner in the middle of a sentence. On the other
hand, although delayed feedback can allow the learner time to finish what the
learner is trying to say, the feedback may become less effective as the time
between the error and treatment increases.

1.4. Correction techniques
We all know that the roles of errors are very important and useful during the
process of language acquisition. Although some people think that errors are
negative things, Error is a good mirror which reflects not only what learners

9

know but also what they don‟t know. Ngo Ai Tuong, in her book “Methodology
Course (2), Teaching Language Components & Skills” wrote that student errors
are useful way of showing what they have and haven‟t learned. So instead of
seeing errors negatively, as a sign of failure (by the students or teacher), we see
them positively as an indication of what we need to teach. Obviously, if we try to
prevent students from making errors we can never find out what they do not
know (pp. 85). Because errors are regarded as important and positive things,
error corrections techniques used to deal with students errors should also be
positive and appropriate. Ngo Ai Tuong, in her book “Methodology Course (2),
Teaching Language Components & Skills” also wrote that many correction
techniques used by teachers are ingenious and intuitive. The important thing is
that they should be appropriate for specific error and clear for learners. It is more
important always to use the same set of techniques so that learners can become
familiar with them. For correcting spoken errors, Ngo Ai Tuong indicates six
appropriately positive spoken error correction techniques.
 Finger correction
The technique is described: Use each finger of your left hand to represent a word.
Holding your palm towards you, your little finger represents the first word of the
sentence and point to the „words‟ with your right hand. Move from right to left
(backwards), so that the students „read‟ it the other way around, from left to right.
Finger correction is commonly used to deal with missing contraction, missing
words and too many words.
[a] missing contraction
e.g. „I have got a house‟
Show the first word (e.g. „I‟) with one finger and the word it‟s contracted to (e.g
„have‟) with next finger.
Squeeze the two fingers together to show the contraction (e.g. I‟ve‟)
[b] Missing word.

e.g. „I‟ve got a car‟


10

Point the finger that represents the missing word in the sentence.
[c ] too many words
e.g. „I‟m agree with you‟
Point the finger that represent the unnecessary word in the sentence and pull the
finger down to show „take the word away‟.
 Question mark
Use the question mark, in your voice/or your face.
E.g. Student: I go yesterday.
Teacher: [turns face to the side a bit and frowns] go?
Student: Oh. Yes. I went yesterday
 Alternatives
Give the students an alternative: tell them the correct answer and wrong answer,
put a question mark into your voice and get them to choose the right sentence.
E.g. Student: He go to the market.
Teacher: He go or goes?
Student: He goes.
Teacher: Say it again.
Student: He goes to the market.
 „S’ card
Have a large „S‟ written on the card. Keep it in your top pocket. Every time a
student forget an „s‟ at the end of the word, flash your „S‟ card them.
Student: What this?
Teacher: [show the „S‟ card]
Student: What this?
Teacher: Good.

11

 BB prompt
Use the model sentence written on the board during the presentation stage to
remind („prompt‟) the student of the form, word order, contraction, etc.
Note: not enough teachers‟ points at the board to elicit correct- it‟s a very easy
way to do correction-don‟t forget about it!
Student: I‟ve been here since two years.
Teacher: [point at the word „for‟ on the board]
Student: Oh. Sorry. I‟ve been here for two years.
 Student-to-student correction
Try some of above technique first, but if they don‟t work, use other students in
class who can answer correctly to help the student who has made the mistake.
Point at a good student and then point at the student who need help and say,
„Help her‟ or „Help him‟.
Student 1: I can football
Teacher: [uses finger correction to show „play‟]
Student 1: I can football
Teacher: [point to student 2 and then to student 1]. Help him.
Student 2: I can play football
Student 1: I can play football
 Modeling (Teacher-to-student): Back chaining.
Try any of above technique first, but if you have no success, repeat a good model
for student to copy. Use these techniques for pronunciation mistakes and students
who have problems because the sentence is too long. Use back-chaining, linking
and other pronunciation techniques such as showing the student the shape of your
mouth.
Student: I li‟ a cup o‟ tea.

12

Teacher: I li‟?
Student: [silence]
Teacher: Who can help her?
Student: [silence]
Teacher: Ok. Listen to me. I‟d like a cup of tea. I‟d like a cup of tea.
Student:

I li‟ a cup o‟ tea.

Teacher: Tea. Repeat.
Student:

tea

Teacher:

cup of tea

Student:

cup of tea

Teacher:

like cup of tea etc.

 Indirect correction
During pair-work and group work, go around from group to group, with a
notebook and pencil. Listen to the group for a while, then write down one or two
bog mistakes (if there are any) that they are making. At the end of the lesson, or
start of the next lesson, write the mistake in the board or read them out to the
class. Get the students to correct the mistakes.
Moreover, Decisions about giving appropriate techniques for spoken errors also
depend on the stage of the lesson, types of error made, and the student who is
making that error. “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 following


13

techniques for error correction during accuracy and fluency are suggest by
Harmer (2001)
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. 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? 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, e.g.
*Flight 309 GO to Paris? (said with 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 Do people 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 (for example a wobbling hand), 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.
 Hinting: 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


14

them think about a concord mistake they have made. This kind of hinting
depends upon the students and the teacher sharing metalanguage (linguistic
terms) which, when whispered to students, will help them to correct themselves.
 Reformulation: an underrated correction 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.
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 because we are
dealing with an error or an attempt that is beyond the students‟ knowledge or
capability, the teacher will want to help the students to get it right.
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 emphasizing 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 „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.

Feedback during fluency work
 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


15

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


16

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 or bluntly 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!


17

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research questions
The study is to answer two following questions:
(1) Do teachers use correction techniques to deal with students‟ spoken errors?If
yes, Are the techniques used appropriately?
(2) What effects do suggested correction techniques bring to teachers when using
them

3.2. Research participants
3.2.1. The researcher
The study is done by Phan Huu Phuoc, English 2008B class, Foreign Language
Department, Dong Thap University.

3.2.2. The subjects
The subjects of the study are English 10 and 11 textbook, five teachers of English
10 and 11, and 186 students of grades 11 including 11A1, 11A2, 11A3, 10A1,
10A2 and 11CB4 at Thanh Binh 1 High School. Three of the teachers have more
than 7 years in teaching. One has more than 30 years in teaching. Other has 18
years in teaching.In general, Generally speaking, they are really experienced
teachers.

3.3. Research instruments
3.3.1. Interviewing (see Appendix 1)
Interviewing is an effective and basic research tool in social science. In this
thesis, interviewing is used to obtain ideas and information about teachers‟
spoken error correction they used to deal with students errors during their
teaching time. In this interviewing, most of the questions are yes/no question
with explainations in order to get teachers‟ opinions for correcting students‟
spoken errors.

18

The interviewing questions are designed to check whether teachers use correction
techniques to deal with students‟ errors and recognize whether the time when
teachers give the correction is appropriate or not. Other questions are aimed at
obtaining information about steps used by the teachers and how teachers use
techniques in correcting errors.
English was used in all the interviews because correction techniques and steps of
the correction teachers‟ answer are in English, so it is a good tool for teachers to
complete the interviewing. It also makes the writer feel easy to analyse
information. In fact, if the language choosen in the interviewing is Vietnamese, It
is hard for the writer to translate teachers‟ ideas with exact meaning as what
teachers want to share. Additionally, teachers also have one or two days to
complete the interviewing, so teachers are able to give the better quality answers.
The interviewing consists of seven questions:
. Question 1 is to check the attitude of teachers when correcting students‟ errors,
check whether teachers correct all the spoken errors students make or not. From
teachers‟ explainations, the writer is able to make a comparison between
teachers‟s ideas and the knowledge about error correction in methodology.
. Question 2 is to identify the time teachers give the correction and have some
information about the approriate time students should be received corrections by
teachers.
 Question 3 is to realize whether teachers use correction techniques to deal with
students‟ errors as well as what techniques teachers use.
 Question 4 is to show steps teachers use in correcting errors.
 Question 5 is to check whether teachers use „indirect correction‟
 Question 6 is to identify the time and the ways teacher use „indirect correction‟
if they have ever used.

 Question 7 is to ask teachers to give the reasons for not using „indirect
correction‟.


19

3.3.2. Observation
The second type of data collection in the thesis is classroom participatory
observation. Observation is the most basic research technique we can employ in
our classroom (Miller, 2004). To be convenient for checking, the results of
observations were recorded on observation sheets. The observation notes are
designed with clear categories focused on spoken error correction purposes
which the writer has planned so that they can be easy for the writer to observe
and analyse collected data.
Five periods of five different lessons were observed in five classes. The purposes
are to identify whether use correction techniques to deal with student errors or
not during each stage of the lesson.if teachers use them, check whether they are
effectively used or not, and explore what kinds of errors teachers usually give
corrections. This kind of observation sheet consists of three big items (see
Appendix 2).
. Item I is to identify whether teachers correct students‟ spoken errors or not and
whether spoken error corrections are used without techniques or with techniques
and effectively.
. Item II is to explore what errors teachers usually correct, don‟t correct and
check whether the used corrections are without techniques or with techniques and
effectively.
 Item III is to figure out whether correction techniques teachers use to deal with
students‟ spoken errors are used effectively, ineffectively or not used. If teachers
used correction techniques, what are they?

20

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Findings
4.1.1. Findings from the interviewing analysis and comparison
Before doing the interviewing, five copies of the interview forms are delivered to
five English teachers at Thanh Binh High School. The data collected are as
follows:

Interview questions
1. Do you correct all spoken errors students make? Why (not)?
According to the answers of five teachers on the interview form, There has a
similarity among these teachers that all of them have the same answer „No, I
don‟t correct all spoken errors students make‟ for the yes or no question in
question number one. In spoken error correction theory, it is not encouraged
teachers to correct all the errors students make. However, teachers‟ explainations
for this question are differently answered. There are two teachers who agree that
teachers shouldn‟t correct the errors students make because “the students will
lose their sef-confidence when speaking” or “I want student to speak naturally.
Correcting all student errors makes students inconfident”. The two answers agree
theory of error corrections. In fact, if teachers don‟t correct students‟ spoken
errors, they will think that what they have spoken is correct, so they continue to
make errors without being controlled by teachers. That will make students
believe in what they have conveyed is absolutely true although there are a large
number of errors in their speaking and they also leads students to incorrect
language form. Certainly, students will repeat their errors in speaking or in doing

tests later.
Three other teachers pay more attention to the time for corrections. Two of them
think that they don‟t enough time to correct all spoken errors students make. One
tends to focus on giving their teaching lesson to student successfully. This idea
partly agrees theory of error correction. Athough one of teachers‟ duties in class
is to instruct students to understand the lesson, correcting students‟ spoken errors


21

is also a very necessary task teachers need focus as well. If teachers always want
to give students and forget correcting students‟ errors, students will use errors as
corretly good things they have learned without teachers‟ corrections. Students
usually thinh that what teachers don‟t correct is right one. Other thinks that
“correcting important errors is necessary”. It corresponds to spoken error
correction because teachers should correct spoken errors selectively. In fact, if
they correct students all the time, they will certainly lose confidence. Having
confidence is very important for students to be able to have good speaking or
good presentation whereas losing confidence will makes classroom atmosphere
low down. Others dare not speak out what they think or have prepared before
because they are worry about being corrected whenever speaking. “Try to create
a relaxed atmosphere in your classes so that most learners are not frightened of
speaking in front of the rest of class”. (Ngo Ai Tuong, Methodology Course (2),
Teaching Language Components & Skills, 75 pp).

2. at what stage of the lesson, do you think is important to correct
students‟ errors?
The interviewing forms show that all of the five interviewed teachers have the
same answer “the important stage to correct students‟ errors is post-stage”.
Choosing post-stage is important to correct students‟ error is appropriate. If

teachers give corrections at while-stage when students are speaking, it can treat
the errors immediately. However, this will not only interrupt students‟
presentation but also reduce their confidence which is necessary for others to be
willing to speak or express in front of classroom. Post-stage allows teachers time
to collect students‟ common errors and give corrections. Moreover, it also
provides students with chances to note made errors and correct by themselves.
Teachers can use post-stage to remind students to avoid making errors which
have been created before by other students. This step is believed to be very
necessary because reminding students to take notice of created errors also means
that teachers indirectly avoid giving the same correction to others and taking
notes for errors will help students memorize the correct forms easily.


22

3. Do you use any techniques for error correction? Which techniques?
The collected answers are different among five teachers. Although three teachers
answer „yes‟ with the yes/no question, techniques teachers use are different. The
first answer is “It must depend on what types of errors. Some techniques I often
use are translation, explanation, synonym or giving examples…”. Comparing
with methodology, Teachers use techniques depended on types of errors is good
because teachers should correct students‟ errors with selective techniques. Ngo
Ai Tuong, in her book “Methodology Course (2), Teaching Language
Components & Skills” also wrote that many correction techniques used by
teachers are ingenious and intuitive. The important thing is that thay should be
appropriate for specific error and clear for learners. It is more important always
to use the same set of techniques so that learners can become familiar with them.
However, Techniques the teacher uses aren‟t included in methodology. He use
translation, explanation, synonym to deal with students‟ spoken errors about
vocabulary. The used techniques are made from experiences during teaching

process but not in methodology.
The second anwser is “- eliciting
- repeating chorally
- reminding the rules on the board”
The steps of the used techniques are described as those of technique
„alternatives‟.

The difference between this technique and alternative is that

instead of putting a question mark, teacher asks students to repeat chorally and
instead of asking students to repeat with the correct form, teacher reminds the
rules on the board because most of the spoken errors students make are grammar
errors, so writing on the board is necessary.
The third anwser is “ giving a hint or eliciting for students to repeat a few times
the errors they have made (with a funny and polite attitude). Although the
technique teacher uses doesn‟t have enough steps as these introduced in
methodology, corrections with a funny and polite attitude can certainly create the


23

relaxed classroom atmosphere. However, it only focuses on more teachers‟
giving

corrections

than

students‟s

finding correction.

This

technique

unintentionally makes students passive during the correction proccess. In fact,
students only listen to the correct form and repeat what teacher has talked, but
they are not encouraged to correct what they have done with teacher‟s help.
One teacher who doesn‟t use any techniques to deal with students errors is the
fourth one. She rarely corrects students‟ errors with techniques. Her correction
techniques are made by her habit and teaching experience. In general, spoken
error corrections given without techniques can hardly guide students to the
correct language form and make them memorize errors well.
The last one answers “No, I don‟t I correct students‟ mistakes which related to
their grammatical points.”. This teacher appreciates the important roles of
grammatical points than correcting spoken errors and correction techniques.

4. What are your steps to students‟ errors?
The interviewing forms show that all of the five interviewed teachers have
different answers. The first interviewed teacher‟s answer is “First, I help students
to identify the errors, underline them. Then I give the questions to find out the
solution. After that, students show their opinions in groups or individual. Last, I
inform the correct solution”. The used correction steps of the teacher seem to be
quite enough to deal with students‟ errors. In methodology, the first correction
step is “don‟t look angry. Be encouraging. Say nicely, „No, not quite right‟.” The
first step is to encourage students and avoid making them disappointed about the
errors. Furthermore, in the last step, teacher should praise the student but they
don‟t.
The second collected answer is “1. Collecting errors from students

2. Showing the common errors on the board
3. Eliciting the students to correct themselves
4. Emphasizing some important errors”


24

Like the first answer, there is lack of the first step of encouraging students. Step
three doesn‟t correspond to correction steps because teacher elicits the students to
correct to themselves. Instead of eliciting the students to correct themselves,
teacher should use one of techniques to elicit the correction in this step because
not all the errors should be corrected by students, they should be corrected by
appropriate techniques.
The third teacher gives the answer “- give a suggestion and give an example
-

call them to repeat”

According to the answer, the teacher doesn‟t have enough steps in correction
steps. These used correction steps can only create interaction from teachers to
students but not students to teacher because students don‟t have chances to try
correcting their errors. Their task is to listen and repeat the correct form instead
of partly joining in the correction which makes them less active.
The fourth answer is “no techniques for correction”
The last teacher gives the answer “Explain why students make errors and then
correct them.” She explains the errors and correct directly. The two steps also can
not raise students‟ interest for correcting errors. Instead of explain why students
make errors, teacher can isolate the error. After the errors are shown, teacher uses
one of the techniques to deal with students‟ errors. Then, let them repeat the
correct form. Praising them is necessarily encouraged because it makes students

feel confident and they are not worried about being corrected by teacher.

5. Have you ever used „indirect correction‟?
There are two teacher answer „no‟ for this question and others say „yes‟

6. If yes, when and how do you use „indirect correction‟?
The second interviewing gives the answer “After we collect errors from students,
we follow these steps: 1. Collecting errors from students.
2. Showing the common errors on the board.
3. Eliciting the students to correct themselves.


25

4. Emphasizing some important errors”.
The steps of the technique are quite good. However, in the step of collecting
errors from students, teacher forgot collecting big mistake secretly. That means
he doesn‟t show who make mistakes. Moreover, he doesn‟t mention the time of
the correction while the suitable time is at the end of the lesson,or start of the
next lesson.
The third interviewed teacher answers “when we teach speaking, reading,
writing, or listening ewe can call some students who are good at English to repeat
so that the others can recognized their mistakes”
The fourth answer “I use „indirect correction‟ very often. I call one student to do
an exercise if he/she makes mistake, I will call a better student to correct this
mistake.” Both the answer of the fourth and third get misunderstanding about
„indirect correction‟. It is a correction technique in which instead of giving error
corrections directly to students who have made or made errors, collecting big
mistakes from students without pointing who created them is used. Students will
correct the mistakes wrriten on the board at the end of the lesson or the start of

the new lesson. In methodology „indirect correction‟ is described that during
pair-work and group work, go around from group to group, with a notebook and
pencil. Listen to the group for a while, then write down one or two big mistakes
(if there are any) that thay are making. At the end of the lesson, or start of the
next lesson, write the mistake in the board or read them out to the class. Get the
students to correct the mistakes.

7. If no, why not?
The answer fom the fifth interviewing showing that teacher doesn‟t use „indirect
correction‟ because she thinks that direct correction makes students understand
easily. That is not totally right because each technique has its own effectiveness
which depends on when and how it is used.
“Because teacher have to prepare carefully for the lesson and also think of some
situations related to the lesson first. Whenever we find out a difficult problem,