an investigation into teachers correction and its effects on non english majored students motivation and improvement in learning pre esp subject at viettronics technology college

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG LUYẾN

An investigation into teachers’ correction
and its effects on non-English majored students’
motivation and improvement in learning
pre-ESP subject at Viettronics Technology College

(Tìm hiểu việc sửa lỗi của giáo viên và ảnh hưởng của nó
đối với hứng thú và tiến bộ của sinh viên tiếng Anh không chuyên
trong học tập môn học tiếng Anh cơ sở tại trường
Cao đẳng Công nghệ Viettronics)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Teaching Methodology

Code:

60 14 10

Hanoi - 2010


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG LUYẾN

An investigation into teachers’ correction
and its effects on non-English majored students’
motivation and improvement in learning
pre-ESP subject at Viettronics Technology College

(Tìm hiểu việc sửa lỗi của giáo viên và ảnh hưởng của nó
đối với hứng thú và tiến bộ của sinh viên tiếng Anh không chuyên
trong học tập môn học tiếng Anh cơ sở tại trường
Cao đẳng Công nghệ Viettronics)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field:

English Teaching Methodology

Code:

60 14 10

Supervisor: Phùng Thị Kim Dung, M.A.

Hanoi - 2010

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... ii
Table of contents........................................................................................................................iii
List of charts and tables .............................................................................................................. v

PART A – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Aims of the study .................................................................................................................... 2
3. Research questions.................................................................................................................. 2
4. Methods of the study .............................................................................................................. 2
5. Scope of the study................................................................................................................... 3
6. Significance of the study ........................................................................................................ 3
7. Design of the study ................................................................................................................. 3
8. Definitions of terminologies ................................................................................................... 4

PART B – DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 5
1.1. Perspectives on learner errors in foreign language learning ............................................ 5
1.1.1. Errors as failure..................................................................................................... 5
1.1.2. Errors as positive aids to learning ......................................................................... 5
1.2. Error correction and foreign language progress .............................................................. 6
1.2.1. Negative perspectives of error correction ............................................................. 7
1.2.2. Positive perspectives of error correction .............................................................. 8
1.3. Error treatment and learning motivation.......................................................................... 9
1.4. Error correction in an integrated-instruction form language teaching context .............. 11
1.5. Forms of error correction ............................................................................................... 12

1.5.1. Self-correction .................................................................................................... 13
1.5.1.1. Self-correction to oral work ......................................................................... 13
1.5.1.2. Self-correction to written work .................................................................... 14
1.5.2. Peer-correction .................................................................................................... 15
1.5.2.1. Peer-correction to oral work ........................................................................ 15
1.5.2.2. Peer-correction to written work .................................................................. 15
1.5.3. Teacher-correction .............................................................................................. 16
1.5.3.1. Teacher-correction to oral work ................................................................. 16
1.5.3.2. Teacher-correction to written work ............................................................ 16
1.6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 16


iv

CHAPTER 2 – THE STUDY ................................................................................................. 17
2.1. Setting of the study ........................................................................................................ 17
2.2. Subjects and instrumentations ....................................................................................... 17
2.2.1. Subjects ............................................................................................................... 17
2.2.2. Instrumentations ................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2.1. Questionnaires ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.2.2. Classroom observation................................................................................. 18
2.2.2.3. Quasi-experiment ......................................................................................... 18
2.3. Data collection ............................................................................................................... 19
2.4. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.1. Analysis of teachers’ survey questionnaire ........................................................ 20
2.4.2. Analysis of students’ survey questionnaire ........................................................ 23
2.4.3. Analysis of the experimental and control groups’ pre-test and post-test
results .................................................................................................................. 27
2.4.3.1. Comparison of linguistic competence in pre-test between the treatment
group and control group............................................................................... 28

2.4.3.2. Comparison of linguistic competence in the pre-test and post-test within
groups .......................................................................................................... 28
2.4.3.3. Comparison of linguistic competence between groups ............................... 29
2.5. Findings and discussion ................................................................................................. 30
2.5.1. Teachers’ perceptions of error/mistake correction and their corrective
practices .............................................................................................................. 30
2.5.2. The effects of teachers’ correction practices on students’ pre-ESP learning
motivation ........................................................................................................... 34
2.5.3. The effect of teachers’ correction techniques on students’ learning
improvement ....................................................................................................... 37

PART C – CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 39
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................................. I
APPENDIX II........................................................................................................................... II
APPENDIX III ....................................................................................................................... IV
APPENDIX IV ....................................................................................................................... VI
APPENDIX V ......................................................................................................................... IX
APPENDIX VI ....................................................................................................................... XI
APPENDIX VII ................................................................................................................... XIII
APPENDIX VIII ..................................................................................................................XIV


v

LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES

Name

Page

Chart 1 – The role of error correction in English learning as perceived by teachers

20

Chart 2 – Oral mistakes most corrected by the teachers

21

Chart 3 - Written mistakes most corrected by the teachers

22

Chart 4 – The most useful correction type as perceived by the teachers

23

Chart 5 – The importance of error correction from the students’ perceptions

24

Chart 6 – Oral mistakes which the students most liked to be corrected

25

Chart 7 - Written mistakes which the students most liked to be treated

25

Chart 8 - The most useful correction type as perceived by the students

26

Table 1 – Factors affecting teachers’ decision of correction

20

Table 2 – Types and frequency of teachers’ correction

23

Table 3 – The relationship between teachers’ correction and students’ learning

27

motivation
Table 4 – Pre-test means of the experimental and control groups

28

Table 5 – Descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post-test scores of the

28

experimental and control groups.
Table 6 – Mean gains of the experimental and control groups

29

-1-

PART A - Introduction
1. Rationale
Making mistakes/errors is natural in learning any language including English. As an
Italian proverb goes “Sbagliando s’impara”, which means “We learn through our errors,” it is
commonly agreed that mistakes and errors are indispensable parts in the learning process, and
correction should be included in productive English lessons. Surprisingly, the history of
foreign language teaching and learning research has witnessed contradictory opinions on the
effects of correction on learner’s English improvement. On the one hand, scholars like
Truscott (1996), Krashen (1978), Semke (1984), and many others found negative impacts as
a result of this classroom practice. On the other hand, linguists like Chaudron (1986),
Hendrickson (1984), Ferris (1999), Corder (1973) and Ellis (1989) maintain significant
usefulness of error correction in learner’s learning success. Moreover, despite being one form
of teacher-student classroom interaction and closely related to learners’ interest in learning in
that it may either motivate or demotivate learners, how error correction affects learners’
learning motivation has not been adequately studied. Therefore, the effects of correction on
motivation and improvement deserve more detailed studies.
In Vietnam nowadays, with the increasingly important role of English in the society,
in most colleges where students major in information technology, accounting, business
administration, electronics and electric technology or else other than English, freshmen are
required to attend a pre-ESP course in preparation for their ESP courses. At Viettronics
Technology College (VTC), English is taught as a basic science to assist their work in the
future. In the curriculum, it is one of the compulsory subjects that have to be taken by firstyear students before they take ESP courses in their second or third year. The aims of the
course are to help students improve their English communicative skills and more importantly,
enhance their linguistic knowledge so as to successfully deal with ESP materials. Lifelines
Elementary is chosen as the course book. Students need to practice pieces of grammar and
learn the vocabulary needed for speaking, reading, listening and writing activities. They are
almost at the same low level of English proficiency, so error making is unavoidable. Mistakes

and errors occurring in this English course are in both spoken and written forms including
those on grammar, pronunciation, word use and word/sentence meaning. Understandably,
teachers’ correction does follow as an attempt to fix these problems. However, what might be
unknown to these practitioners is the level of impact that their corrective practices assert on
the language motivation and improvement of their students. In the context of pre-ESP


-2-

teaching and learning of teachers and non-English majored students at VTC, it is worth our
effort to investigate teachers’ corrective practices as well as how they influence students’
motivation and improvement in learning pre-ESP subject.
2. Aims of the study
The aims of this study are threefold:
- To investigate teachers’ perceptions of error/mistake correction and their corrective
practices.
- To investigate the effect of teachers’ correction practice on students’ pre-ESP learning
motivation.
- To investigate the effect of teachers’ correction techniques on students’ learning
improvement.
3. Research questions
- What do teachers think of the role of mistake/error correction in English learning? What
factors affect their decision of correction?
- What are teachers’ correction practices in pre-ESP classes? (What kind of mistakes do
teachers correct most? What is the amount of correction do they offer in a pre-ESP lesson?
What types of correction do they often use to correct students in pre-ESP classes?)
- What are students’ opinions on their teachers’ correction? How do teachers’ corrective
practices affect their students’ learning motivation?
- What is the effect of teachers’ error correction on the students’ learning improvement in
terms of linguistic competence?

The answer to this question will reveal the acceptance of either the hypothesis that
+ The students who receive error correction will make more improvement in linguistic
competence than those who receive no error correction at all.
+ There is no difference in learning improvement (in terms of linguistic competence)
between the experimental group and the control group.
4. Methods of the study
The instrumentations employed in this study are as follows:
- Two questionnaires to investigate teachers’ perceptions of correction as well as its relation
to students’ attitudes and motivation in learning pre-ESP.
- Classroom observation to collect more information about teachers’ correction practices.
- A quasi-experiment to work out if the teachers’ correction does lead to the students’
improvement in language learning.


-3-

5. Scope of the study
Given that the teachers’ perceptions of error/mistake correction and their corrective
practices as well as the effects of their error correction on students’ pre-ESP learning
motivation and improvement are the foci of the study, this paper does not try to investigate
written or oral error correction in details. Instead, it deals with error correction of both kinds,
which always occurs in a pre-ESP lesson. Moreover, error correction is too broad a part of
study in English language teaching, so this paper only focuses on teachers’ correction and its
effects on non-English majored students’ motivation and improvement in learning pre-ESP
subject at Viettronics Technology College. First-year VTC students have to take two pre-ESP
courses. The first course aims at improving students in their four common communicative
skills and the three language elements while the second, apart from focusing on the language
areas as mentioned above, intends to enhance their linguistic knowledge so as to assist them
in processing and responding to the ESP materials. Therefore, students’ improvement in this
study refers to that in linguistic competence. Finally, the relationship between motivation and

improvement lies beyond the scope of our investigation.
6. Significance of the study
This study, with the view to investigating the effects of teachers’ correction on
students’ motivation and improvement in learning pre-ESP subject, hopes to bring a thorough
look at one of the influential factors to the teaching and learning of a specific subject.
Additionally, it reveals a fact that though grammatical error correction is considered
unnecessary by many scholars, it still receives much attention by both teachers and students.
A discussion on useful and effective correction will also make this paper a worth-reading
reference document for those who care about this pedagogical issue.
7. Design of the study
This study contains three parts:
- Part A – Introduction covers an overview of the study in which the rationale, aims, research
questions, methods, scopes, significance as well as design and definitions of terminologies of
the study.
- Part B – Development deals with a review of related literature, the setting, the methods,
data analysis, and findings and discussions of the data collected.
- Part C – Conclusion sums up the main findings of the study and presents the limitations as
well as recommendations for further study.


-4-

8. Definitions of terminologies
8.1. Error: “A systematic deviation from the accepted code.” (Norrish, 1983:127)
8.2. Mistake: “A non-systematic deviation from the language code indicating incomplete
learning.” (Norrish, 1983:128)
8.3. Correction: A way of reminding learners of the forms of standard language.
8.4. Feedback: Listener or reader’s responses provided to the learner’s spoken or written
production. Feedback covers two terms: assessment and correction. In this paper, feedback
refers to correction, thus, the terms “feedback”, “error correction”, “error treatment” and

“corrective feedback” can be interchangeably used.
8.5. Language acquisition: The process of learning a native or a second language.
8.6. Motivation: “The extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the
language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity.”
(Gardner, 1985:10)
8.7. Improvement: The process of something becoming better. (Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary)


-5-

part B - Development
CHAPTER 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Perspectives on learner errors in foreign language learning
Ever since language teaching and learning began, errors have been in existence as an
integral part of learning process. However, not until the 1940s was a systematic analysis of
second/foreign language errors developed and scholarly attended to. Methodologically, there
have been two schools of thoughts concerning learner’s errors. One maintains that “if we
were to achieve a perfect teaching method, the errors would never be committed in the first
place, and therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of our
teaching techniques” (Corder, 1967: 162-3). The other school claims that “we live in an
imperfect world and consequently errors will always occur in spite of our best efforts”
(Corder, 1967:163). Thereby, errors and mistakes are viewed from two extremes: errors as
failure and errors as an essential part and positive aids to learning. Understandably, these
converse perspectives, which will be discussed in more details below, decide upon how
teachers respond to students’ mistakes.
1.1.1. Errors as failure
With the coming into being of the Audio-lingual approach to language teaching after the
Second World War and affected by the theory of Contrastive Analysis, language learner
errors were seen as a negative phenomenon in language learning. This approach, derived

from the behaviorist psychology and emphasizing the teaching of oral skills i.e. listening and
speaking skills, maintained that “language performance consists of a set of habits in the use
of language structures and patterns” (Krashen & Terrell, 1983:14). Accordingly, it was not
necessary for learners to understand grammar rules. Instead, they were expected to memorize
correct forms of the language and then produce error-free utterances. As Mings (1993, cited
in Hashimoto, 2004:17) points out, “errors were to be avoided as if they were sinful”, this
mechanistic approach stressing grammatical accuracy required that errors were treated
immediately as they occurred so as to avoid compounding bad habits in the learner.
Influenced by this approach, many pedagogists treat errors as learner’s failure in acquiring
the language.
1.1.2. Errors as positive aids to learning
It can be said that the pedagogical treatment of foreign language learner errors is closely
related to the changes in language theories. Appearing at the same time as Communicative
method, Error Analysis pioneered a positive thought of the significance of errors in language
acquisition. Enlightened by Chomsky’ s idea that a child generates language through innate


-6-

universal structures (Chomsky, 1975, cited in Fisher, 2007:7), views on how a foreign
language learner strives to acquire the language have differed from the Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis that language learning is simply a habit formation process. Maamari (2010) sums
up Corder’s idea (1973) that “language learning is not so much a question of acquiring a set
of automatic habits, but rather a process of discovering the underlying rules, categories and
systems of choice in the language by some sort of processing by the learner of the data of the
language presented to him by the teacher”. What is meant by this claim is that the learner
plays a main and active role in his language learning in which he discovers language rules by
going through several stages and processes including making errors. As Corder (1967) sees
it, the making of errors is “a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the learner
has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of the language he is learning.” (Corder,

1967:167) Therefore, his incorrect utterances can be interpreted as the “evidence that he is in
the process of acquiring language” (Corder, 1967:165). This viewpoint was shared by the
results of Carroll’s work (1955, cited in Corder, 1967:168) that the most efficient way to
teach a student the correct linguistic forms is to let him test various hypotheses and find the
right forms himself.
In brief, foreign language teaching research in the past decades has shown a remarkable
shift from contrastive analysis to error analysis with regard to learner error’s role in their
learning process. It is clearly pointed out that errors facilitate language learning. Moreover,
they are significant to the teacher in that they tell him “how far towards the goal the learner
has progressed, and consequently, what remains for him to learn” (Corder, 1967: 167), and
thus enabling the teacher to decide whether to move on to the next linguistic item or to design
a remedial syllabus or a reteaching program. In this way, errors also contribute to best
facilitating learning process.
1.2. Error correction and foreign language progress
Following such a controversial issue like learner’s errors in language learning, the
discussion over the effectiveness of error correction in foreign language acquisition has until
now not ended since teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward this issue are greatly influenced
by the teaching and learning approach that they adopt. Since the mid 1960s, new approaches
like the Cognitive Code theory (Carroll,1965), originated from transformational-generative
grammar and Cognitive psychology, the Situational method and the Communicative method
(Brumfit & Johnson, 1979; Widdowson, 1980) have shifted the emphasis in error correction
from teaching students to make error-free sentences as required by the audio-lingual
approach to encouraging them to communicate in the target language. Thereby, error


-7-

correction, though not expected, but if any error occurs, is considered a must in audio-lingual
language classroom. The case is different in a communicative language classroom, however,
where communicative competence is stressed rather than merely linguistic competence.

Errors are accepted in this context as a natural and useful part of learning for they show that
learners are trying to discover the target language as they negotiate meanings through
communicative situations. Hence, it is important that the teacher knows how to sensibly treat
an error in a way that it positively supports communication. On this basis, the questions of
whether error treatment is beneficial or harmful, effective or ineffective have been put in the
focus of attention of many methodologists in the past decade.
1.2.1. Negative perspectives of error correction
It is commonly accepted that the purpose of error treatment is to help learners memorize
the input and then produce as perfect output as possible. In fact, there exists evidence that in
the foreign language teaching context, corrective feedback not only shows little or no
contribution to learner’s learning progress but also probable counter-productiveness. Perhaps
one reasonably outstanding advocate of this perspective is Truscott. In his paper on the
effectiveness of grammar correction in L2 writing classes, he argues that,
Veteran teachers know there is little connection between correction and learning: Often a
student will repeat the same mistake over and over again, even after being corrected many
times. When this occurs, it is tempting for the teacher to say the student is not attentive or
lazy; however, the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, even with successful students, argues
against any such explanation. Rather the teacher should conclude that correction simply is not
effective.” (Truscott, 1996:341)

Grammar correction was proved harmful in foreign language writing in many studies.
Those learners who do not receive grammar correction have a more positive feeling about
writing than those who wrote more, and with more complexity, than those who did receive
grammar corrections. Regarding oral grammar correction, Truscott further states that “Given
this failure, one would expect oral correction to fail as well, since it poses even greater
problems both for teachers and for students.” (Truscott, 1999) In addition, Krashen’s Monitor
Theory (Krashen&Terrell, 1983:45) stresses that “an over emphasis on conscious grammar
has the undesirable result of encouraging over-use of the Monitor,” which will excessively
slow down learning. Before that, in his earlier study, Krashen pointed out that, in Ellis’s
words, “... correction is both useless for acquisition and dangerous in that it may lead to a

negative affective response.” (Ellis, 1994:584, cited in Hashimoto, 2004:22) In this way,
Semke (1984: 195) concludes that “corrections do not increase writing accuracy, writing
fluency, or general language proficiency, and they may have a negative effect on student


-8attitudes.” Therefore, the treatment of learner errors is not only ineffective but also counterproductive.
Persuasive as the above evidence of the ineffectiveness of error correction may seem,
many scholars advocate that correction does positively affect foreign language learning.
1.2.2. Positive perspectives of error correction
The evidence for the effectiveness of error treatment is as much as that of its
ineffectiveness. Chaudron (1986) claims that,
Despite the lack of evidence that feedback on linguistic error in classrooms or outside them
is consistently effective in stimulating learners’ interlanguage progress, the possibility
remains that certain learners, especially those with a formal learning style, can derive
benefit from error correction. (Chaudron, 1986:82, cited in Hashimoto, 2004:24)

Approving of this positive extreme, Hendrickson (1984) argues that
... for those adults, .... error correction helps to discover the functions and limitations of the
grammatical structures and lexical forms of the language they are using. (Hendrickson,

1984:145, cited in Hashimoto, 2004: 24)
Hammerly (1991, cited in Hashimoto, 2004) adds that feedback is helpful for mature
learners to test linguistic hypotheses effectively provided that feedback has to be provided in
a clear and systematic way by the teachers. This is because adult learners are under more
pressure in producing the language about which they are uncertain and they always want the
teacher to help them perfect their performance by means of correction. In addition, Naeini
(2008:123) reworded Long’s claim (1996) that “implicit negative feedback, arising from
negotiation for meaning, provides an opportunity for learners to attend to linguistic form”
even when they are taking part in a communicative activity. Ellis (1998) points out that
“negative feedback in the context of communicative activities may promote interlanguage

development” (Ellis, 1998, p. 53, cited in Chang, 2000:2). Similarly, Chang (2000) reports on
Doughty and Varela’s finding (1998) that in their communicative content-based science
class, providing students corrective feedback on their oral presentation and written reports
could significantly promote interlanguage development.
The significance of corrective feedback, or negative evidence, was also affirmed in some
other studies such as Thompson’s. In her study, she insisted that “the student does not
improve his skill if his work is not corrected” (Thompson, 1965, cited in Hashimoto,
2004:26). If errors and mistakes are not treated, they will become fossilized and thus
inhibiting the learner’s language acquisition.


-9-

From all related literature reviewed above, it can be concluded that error correction is
beneficial in all kinds of language classroom activities from grammatical practice to oral
communication or written work. In this context, it provides learners with effective assistance
in developing both foreign language knowledge and skills. As Chaudron (1988) perceives it,
Learners can use feedback as the powerful source of improvement in both target language
development and other subject matter knowledge. (Chaudron, 1988:133, cited in Inoue &

Kubota, 1994:11).
While the outcomes of teachers’ error correction in terms of students’ foreign language
improvement have still been controversial, it is apparent that there exists a close relation
between teachers’ correction and learners’ learning motivation. How this classroom
interaction affects learners’ motivation in foreign language learning will be the focus of the
hereunder part.
1.3. Error treatment and learning motivation
Motivation has been the key concept ever since foreign language learning was studied. It
is one of the most important factors that help to foster the process of language acquisition.
Yet, though very closely connected, error correction and motivation have never been under

thorough investigation. This paper, therefore, hopes to go into details about this relation.
The term “motivation” in second language learning is defined by Gardner (1985) as “the
extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do
so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity.” (Gardner, 1985:10) According to him,
motivation must be the combination of three elements namely “effort and desire to achieve
the goal of learning the language” and “favorable attitudes toward learning the language”.
Therefore, “the individual may want to learn the language and may enjoy the activity, but, if
this is not linked with a striving to do so, then it is not truly motivation.” (Gardner, 1985:10)
Despite the fact that until now the connection between error correction and motivation
has not been studied systematically, much research on error correction has more or less paid
attention to this issue. For example, Ferris (1999) asserts that the absence of correction may
frustrate and demotivate learners. Also, as far as they are concerned, Lavezzo and Dunford
(1993) report on the opinion of a teacher of English about her English trainers “We find that
there is practically no correcting at all, and this comes to us as a big disappointment.”
Lavezzo and Dunford (1993:62, cited in Harmer, 2001:2)
On counting the factors affecting the students’ motivation in the context of foreign
language learning we can find three most influential ones including teachers’ factors,
learners’ factors and teaching and learning conditions.


- 10 -

Many researchers believe that error correction touches not only the cognitive skills, but
also the affective aspects of language learning including learners’ feelings and attitudes
(Krashen 1987, Arnold and Brown 1999, Cathcart and Olsen 1976). Regarding this
interrelation, Hendrickson (1984) proposes four learner factors affecting teacher correction as
follows:


Learners’ level of proficiency in the target language



Learners’ purposes of target language learning



Types of errors



Individual learners’ attitudes toward error correction.

(Hendrickson, 1984:146-7, cited in Hashimoto, 2004:42)
From learners’ side, it is believed that a good teacher should be able to correct people
without offending them. As we see it, classroom interaction, as well as human interaction in
general, is an art. Whether the teacher offers correction or not, the correction techniques they
apply, their attitudes toward learners’ errors, or whatever aspect of their corrective practices
can negatively or positively affect the learners’ motivation for learning. Obviously, for the
reasons of self-esteem and face, people tend to dislike their error being pointed out or treated
by others. In this aspect, the correction, if not offered at the right time, in the right place and
in the appropriate way, may threaten their face and thus causing them to lose enthusiasm for
learning. Ancker interestingly found out that “the most frequent reason given for not wanting
correction was the negative impact on students’ confidence and motivation” (Ancker, 2000:
22). Hence, the factors coming from the learners should be taken into close consideration
when the teacher makes policies on corrective practices.
It is clear that teachers play an important role in determining the level of interest and
enthusiasm of learners in foreign language learning. In their corrective practices, they play
different roles such as judges, designers, scholars, trainers and motivators. According to
Jimena et.al., generally, it is unpleasant experience to be corrected and some of learners may

get frustrated and demotivated because they might not know what to do with the correction
given by the teacher, especially when corrections are given without explanation. In this case,
learners who lack the confidence about their foreign language knowledge are the most likely
people to be discouraged with corrective feedbacks. Thus, it is necessary that foreign
language teachers know how to maximally facilitate favorable learning condition through
their corrective practices.
Foreign language learning is different from other subjects in that learners’ interest in
learning is greatly influenced by both the physical and psychological teaching and learning


- 11 -

environment. Thereby, a healthy, relaxed and lively classroom atmosphere and a harmonious
teacher-student relationship can help the students, especially those with bad English
foundation or introverted characteristics, to overcome the feeling of shyness and anxiety.
They should be encouraged to make mistakes and do uptake and repair in order to improve
their language competence. Therefore, by providing appropriate treatment of students’ errors
and mistakes, the teachers can create a pleasant and supportive atmosphere in the classroom.
1.4. Error correction in an integrated-instruction form language teaching context
Those who have been following the debate over corrective feedback may get ambivalent
when looking back on studies on its effectiveness in foreign language acquisition. These
studies, however, focused on error treatment in a particular language task, for example, oral
work, written work, or grammar practice by means of activities like role play, essay writing
or doing exercises. Little has been revealed on how positively or negatively error treatment
affects the learner’s success in a general English course where both kinds of instructions,
namely, meaning-focused and form-focused are integrated like pre-ESP course. This paper,
as a result, aims to bridge this gap.
In fact, the past decade have seen considerable attention to error correction in a language
class in which language structures are incorporated within a meaning-focused activity. This
complex teaching context requires that the teacher should take some questions into

consideration so as to best utilize error correction as a tool to improve the learner’s linguistic
competence and communicative competence. The questions framed by Hendrickson (1978,
cited in Tedick, 1998:2) are as follows:


Should learners’ errors be corrected?



When should learners’ errors be corrected?



Which errors should be corrected?



How should errors be corrected?



Who should do the correcting?

When the teachers successfully control the answers to these questions, they can take full
advantage of corrective feedback in facilitating learning process.
It is difficult for teachers to decide whether to correct or not in practical situations
because of the temptation to do so as well as the feeling of guilt if the learners’ mistakes are
ignored. As a result, learners often feel discouraged when their teacher does too much
correction. Lewis and Hill agree that “Probably even more important, however, in
undermining the learners’ confidence, is the teacher over-zealous correction of mistakes.”

(Lewis and Hill, 1992:90) This practice is ineffective in that it causes the learners such great


- 12 -

confusion because of too many errors corrected in one lesson that they find it hard to attend
to and memorize any of them. Further, the learners’ confidence in their ability to succeed in
the tasks is reduced to a level at which they dare not take a risk on account of being afraid to
commit mistakes. Therefore, when encountering a learner error, teachers should carefully
consider whether to correct it or not. Often, it is advisable that in tasks focusing on fluency,
teachers should let mistakes go unless they are the cause of misunderstanding and
conversation breakdown. Such global errors deserve correction while local one, those not
hindering the comprehension of the message can be ignored. Similarly, in correcting
grammatical mistakes, teachers should provide treatment on errors relating to the piece of
grammar in focus rather than others. Therefore, global errors must receive high priority for
correction.
As regards the timing of correction, many teaching recommendations favour delayed
feedback arguing that learner should not be interrupted “in the middle of what he is saying,
which can be frustrating and discouraging” (Bartram & Walton, 1991:41) Moreover, when
the main aim of using language is for spoken communication, constant interruptions to
correct errors, great or small, will simply create a barrier to communication, rather than
facilitate it.
Among many questions raised on error correction, the question of how learner should be
treated is probably the most interesting one. Although providing the learners with the correct
forms appears to be the most popular technique, it is preferable that the teachers use various
types of treatment methods. Hashimoto (2004:37) reports on Holley and King’s argument
(1971) that “teachers should not use the methods which make learners feel embarrassed or
frustrated”. Therefore, how to respond to learner errors emerges as a sensitive issue, which
requires that teachers should be thoughtful about selecting the appropriate and effective
correction techniques. In a word, however correction is carried out, it needs to be done with

sensitivity to avoid embarrassment and demotivation.
1.5. Forms of error correction
In an English course where all four skills are integrated, the teachers have to deal with
errors of both spoken form and written form. Whatever forms of errors may come up, the
teachers can apply the following three forms of correction.
- Self-correction
- Peer-correction
- Teacher-correction


- 13 -

1.5.1. Self-correction
The first and probably the most recommended form of error treatment is self-correction.
Makino claims that “it is important for teachers not to correct learner errors or give the right
answers to them immediately; giving cues to the students so they can correct their own errors
will further activate their linguistic competence” (Makino, 1993:340, cited in Chang,
2000:3). Edge (1989:24) adds that “People usually prefer to put their own mistakes right
rather than be corrected by someone else.” Indeed, self-correction gives the learners a sense
of achievement and confidence. Here, correction is like a task which the learners have
successfully fulfilled. Meanwhile, they are more likely to memorize the mistakes they have
corrected themselves and thus hopefully not recommitting them in the future. Moreover,
teachers are advised to teach the students to edit their own writing or utterances because they
will not succeed outside the classroom unless they can learn how to reduce their errors. As
for teachers, by using this type of correction, they can gain an insight into the students’
knowledge base, an important criterion to design and organize classroom activities. Despite
not directly correcting the mistakes, the teacher’s role is crucial in that they show the learners
a mistake has been made. This practice best works when the mistake is a slip, a kind of
mistake on known language made by carelessness.
As stated earlier, both spoken and written errors can be corrected by means of selfcorrection. The following are some techniques for error treatment collected and introduced

by Walz (1982):
1.5.1.1. Self-correction to oral work


Pinpointing

The teacher localizes an error without giving it away. Localizing can be done by
repeating the student’s sentence up to the error, or slightly exaggerating the vowel length and
trailing the intonation of the last word before the mistake.


Rephrasing question

The purpose for rephrasing a question is to reduce the number of words, or in other
words, to state a question in another way when the student indicates a lack of understanding
of the question but does not make a grammatical error.


Cueing

The teacher gives the grammatical variations of a key content word. This is possible
when a student indicates difficulty forming a specific word.


Generating simple sentences


- 14 -

The teacher provides several possible answers to the questions asked. This technique is

also useful when the student lacks understanding of an entire question.


Questioning

If the student uses a word that the teacher does not understand, the teacher may ask
questions about it.


Repetition

The teacher asks the student to repeat the sentence containing the error. Then, the
student notices a mistake caught in their utterance, thus self-correcting it.


Grammatical terms

Here, the teacher localizes an error by mentioning what function it plays in the sentence.
It is a form-focused technique and is only useful with students who understand the
vocabulary and who are fairly proficient.


Gestures

Nonverbal error correction can occur by means of gestures. This technique ideally
makes teachers’ correction attractive to the students by the teachers’ interesting actions on
the condition that both learners and teachers can interpret the meaning of these actions.
Other techniques (Edge, 1989) can be,


Pretending to misunderstand

The teacher pretends to misunderstand the learners’ idea on account of the mistake and
then the learners will correct it themselves.


Echoing

The teacher repeats the incorrect utterance with a rising tone at the end to make it a
clarifying question. This is considered bad practice because it sounds as if the teacher is
trying to make fun of the student.


Clarification request

The teacher uses phrases like “Excuse me?”, “Pardon?” or “Sorry?” to indicate that there
exists at least one mistake in the student’s utterance and asks for a repetition or
reformulation.


Metalinguistic clues

The teacher poses questions or provided comments or information related to the
formation of the student’s utterance, for example, “Do we say it like that?” Or “We need a
noun here.”
1.5.1.2. Self-correction to written work


Symbols and abbreviations

- 15 Like gestures in correcting oral mistakes, symbols and abbreviations, for example, ‘Sp’
for ‘spelling mistake’, are only useful in case there is an agreement in decoding them.


Reference to grammar rules

The teacher provides reference to a specific rule of grammar on which the student makes
a mistake.


Checklists

The teacher writes a code number above an error in the composition and the same number on
the checklist next to the appropriate explanation.
1.5.2. Peer-correction
For mistakes committed because of the lack of knowledge which one individual can not
self-correct, but which some members of the class probably can correct, peer correction is
best advised. Peer correction, in addition to self-correction, is a way of keeping students
involved in the correction process. Students find it easier to accept correction from a fellow
student rather than the teacher all the time and this in turns builds confidence in completing
the given task. In peer correction, students get more focused and involved in the task, thus
avoiding the risk that only the students who are responsible for completing the task really
work. Also, peer correction is a great way of promoting team work in the classroom.
1.5.2.1. Peer-correction to oral work
The teacher can apply any techniques for self-correction to peer correction by simply
calling on another student who can correct the mistakes. After the correct form has been
pointed out, the student who commits the errors is required to repeat the correct utterance.
1.5.2.2. Peer-correction to written work (Walz, 1982)


Projection

A student composition is projected on a screen for the entire class to correct.


Group compositions

Each group of five students gets together to write an essay on a ditto master and
reproduces it for the entire class.


Exchanging compositions

A composition can be given to a pair of students to be rewritten.


In-class auditing

Students rewrite their early compositions at home and then correct and rewrite them in
class under the guidance of their classmates and the teacher.


- 16 -

1.5.3. Teacher-correction
“If neither the student who made the mistake, nor any other student can correct it, then
the teacher has to give more help.” (Edge, 1989: 27) Teacher correction is especially useful
for adult learners in that it reduces the risk that the learner feels ashamed if corrected by their
peers. Moreover, the teacher can actively manage the timing of correction so that it will not

affect task organization in a lesson. However, students who do not commit the error often
feel less involved when correction takes place.
1.5.3.1. Teacher-correction to oral work (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, cited in Tedick,
1998:3)


Explicit correction

The teacher clearly indicates that the student has produced an incorrect utterance and
provides the correct form.


Recast/reformulation

The teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s error or provides the correct form.
1.5.3.2. Teacher-correction to written work (Walz, 1982)


Direct correction

The teacher underlines a word to draw attention to a hint written near it. A misplaced
word can then be bracketed and placed in its proper order with an arrow. Unnecessary words
are crossed out.


Recording

The teacher can write the simpler corrections on the paper and use numbers keyed to the
tape for longer explanations, or the essay can be read along with a commentary.
1.6. Conclusion

The above reviewed literature has provided us with important information on the theory
and practice of error correction in the context of foreign language learning. The next part of
this chapter is devoted to the study in which the setting of the study, the instruments and
subjects will be discussed in details.


- 17 CHAPTER 2 – THE STUDY
2.1. Setting of the study
Students at VTC have to attend two courses of pre-ESP in their first year. These courses
aim at developing students’ English communication competence by offering four-skill
practice and preparing students for their ESP courses by revising and consolidating their
grammar and vocabulary knowledge. The first aim is set for the first semester, which ends
with an oral final exam while the second one is the focus of the second semester ending with
a written test. In other words, we put our focus on fluency and English communicative
competence in the first term whereas the second term is for accuracy and linguistic
competence. As cited in Wikipedia, linguistic competence was defined in 1965 by Noam
Chomsky as the system of linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language.
Therefore, in this study what is meant by improvement in learning pre-ESP is the
improvement in students’ linguistic competence. Moreover, the students are almost at a low
level of English proficiency, thus, the contents as well as activities designed in the course
book Lifelines Elementary (by Tom Hutchinson, Oxford University Press, 1999) are deemed
suitable for them.
2.2. Subjects and instrumentations
2.2.1. Subjects
The subjects chosen for this study include 5 teachers of English from the English
division of VTC and 100 students, each 20 of whom come from a class taught by one of these
teachers. Additionally, for the quasi-experiment to carry out, two groups of students of IT
will be divided into the treatment group and the control group, which will be elaborated in
the instrumentation.
2.2.2. Instrumentations

Three instruments were employed for this study: questionnaires, class observation and a
quasi-experiment.
2.2.2.1. Questionnaires
A questionnaire of 9 items was given to the teachers to gain information on their
perceptions of student’s errors and error correction as well as their corrective practices. In
addition, another questionnaire with 15 items was delivered to 100 students to investigate
their opinions on and preferences for their teachers’ correction (the first 8 items) and their
motivation in learning pre-ESP (the last 7 items). The questionnaires included both closedended multiple-choice items and open-ended items. The items 12, 13, 14 were designed
basing on the Gardnerian theory of motivation in learning a second language (Gardner, 1985)


- 18 -

and the items 10 and 15 were based on items 24, 77 of the Attitudes/Motivation Test Battery
(Gardner, 2004).
2.2.2.2. Classroom observation
This instrument was exploited in order to attain details about common error
treatment techniques employed by the teachers. The data collected provided preliminary
conditions for the experiment to be conducted.
2.2.2.3. Quasi-experiment
To test the effects of teacher’s error correction on students’ improvement, the
author carried out a quasi- experimental study. The subjects were 100 students coming from
two classes of informatics majors (50 each), who then non-randomly constituted two groups
for the treatment, i.e. the experimental group and the control one. They were given the same
materials, instructions and tasks given by the same teacher during the treatment. The ratio of
male and female students in the two groups was approximately equal at 4:1, and they were
virtually equally motivated and attentive in learning, as perceived by the teacher. Before the
treatment, in order to eliminate the possibility that some students may be familiar with the
language knowledge to be presented during the treatment whereas others do not, which might
falsify the results of the study, the teacher presented the new language without any tasks

given to the students. The students then took a written pre-test on the language relating to
what they had just learnt. During the treatment time of 15 forty - five - minute periods, the
teacher elicited what the students had learnt and organized activities for practice on that
language without assigning any homework or giving in-class tests. By not assigning
homework and tests, the possibility that the students’ better performance in the post-test, if
there were any, was due to their efforts in revising what they had learnt would be limited to a
maximum level. Thus, the findings on the effects of the teacher’s correction on the students’
improvement, if there were any, would be more reliable. For the treatment group, the teacher
applied the oral and written correction techniques most commonly used by the teachers in the
college, as collected from classroom observation, to correct students’ mistakes and errors
while the control group received no correction at all. After the treatment, the students took a
post-test to check whether they had made improvements on the mistakes/errors corrected or
not.
The lesson contents are presented in Appendix 1.
Pre-test, post-test
The tests, to measure student’s linguistic competence, were designed in the way that
they included the questions on the language easily mistaken by the students during the


- 19 -

activities. The questions were on the phonological rules, grammatical rules and vocabulary
presented in the lessons. In order to maximally limit the students’ feeling of familiarity, the
question types in the pre-test were changed when used in the post-test.
The validity and reliability of the test
As regards the test validity, which is defined as “the extent to which the test measures
what it is intended to measure” (Harrison, 1991:11), the contents of the questions were taken
from the Progress Tests in the book Lifelines Elementary Teacher’s Book and they were also
designed on the basis of what was presented in the course book. This ensured that the test
tested what the students actually learnt. Moreover, for the purpose of investigating the

students’ improvement in using the language they learnt in terms of the mistakes/errors they
made, the pre-test had to cover many examples of their mistakes and errors during the
treatment. This was done by the author’s consultation with other teachers who had had four
to seven years of experience in teaching this subject.
In addition, this test had a high level of reliability because each question had only one
correct answer. Thus, the measurements of the tests kept unchanged under any circumstance
of administering and marking.
2.3. Data collection
The survey in the form of questionnaires was conducted from May 3rd to May 9th. Out of
the 120 questionnaires delivered, 115 were collected back and no items were left blank. The
open-ended questions were fully answered as well. Classroom observation was also done at
this time. In all, the author spent ten 45-minute periods observing the teachers’ in-class
correction practices. Generally, most of the teachers employed the following correction
techniques:






Self-correction to oral work
-

Clarification request

-

Echoing

-

Elicitation/pinpointing

Teacher-correction to oral work
-

Recast

-

Explicit correction

Peer-correction to in-class written work.
The experimental study took place from May 10th to May 30th. The teacher created the

same learning condition for both groups except that she provided error correction in the
forms of the above mentioned techniques for the treatment group while the control group


- 20 -

received no correction. The pre-test and post-test were strictly and carefully marked by the
author. The t-value was calculated by Excel T-test function.
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Analysis of teachers’ survey questionnaire
- What do teachers think of the role of mistake/error correction in English learning?
On being asked what they thought of students’ making mistakes/errors, all the teachers
saw this as an essential part of learning process rather than a sign of students’ failure.
Accordingly, four of them agreed that error correction is important in English learning, and
the other one viewed it as very important. None of them denied the important role error

treatment plays in this process.
0%
20%

Very important
Important
Not important
80%

Chart 1 – The role of error correction in English learning as perceived by teachers
- What factors affect teachers’ decision of correction?
Error treatment can be said to be one of the most difficult practices of foreign language
teachers. In order for this practice to be effective, there are some factors needed to be taken
into consideration before a teacher gives correction. Those factors, from the teachers’
viewpoints, are stated in the following table:
Factors

Number of teachers

Percent

Focus of the task

4

80%

Timing of the lesson

1

20%

Students’ individual attitudes toward error correction

3

60%

Students’ level of proficiency in English

3

60%

Table 1 – Factors affecting teachers’ decision of correction