An action research on teachers’ error correction in young learner’s speaking lessons at english house centre, ha noi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
*********************
NGUYỄN THỊ THU HIỀN

AN ACTION RESEARCHON TEACHER’S ERROR CORRECTION IN
YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING LESSONS AT ENGLISH HOUSE
CENTRE, HANOI.
Nghiên cứu ứng dụng sư phạm: Vấn đề giáo viên chữa lỗi với học sinh nhỏ tuổi
trong giờ học nói tại trung tâm English House, Hà Nội.

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dr. Trần Thị Thu Hiền

HANOI - 2017


DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis “An Action Researchon Teachers‟ Error
Correction in Young learners‟ Speaking lessons at English House Centre, Hanoi” is
my own work and effort has not been submitted anywhere for any purpose. In
addition, the contributions of my colleagues and students are involved. Other
sources of information have been used and acknowledged. I cede copyright of the
thesis in favor of Post-graduate Department-Vietnam National University.
Hanoi, 2017
Signature

Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Tran Thi
Thu Hien who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me during the period of
writing this research paper. Her guidance helped me in all the time of research and
writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better mentor for my
study.
Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank all of the instructors in my M.A
course at the Post-Graduate Studies, College of Foreign Languages, Hanoi National
University. With their precious and professional lecturers and tutors, I can
understand thoroughly difficult basic concepts regardless English teaching
methodology.
I am also very grateful to my colleagues at English House center, Hanoi, who
have created favorable conditions for me and have helped me on this research.
I also give my sincere thanks to all 16 students accompanying with me
during the 12-week of the research. Without them, I could not have these data as
convincing evidence for my study.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents and to my
sister for supporting me spiritually throughout writing this thesis.
Hanoi, 2017

ii


ABSTRACT
The present study intended to find out common spoken errors made by
young learners and effective ways to correct these errors. To this end, 16
Vietnamese young students aged 8 to 10 were selected from the learners who are

studying at Movers level. Initially, Movers speaking test was used as a pre-test for
assessing the participants speaking skills and finding their typicalerrors or
participants which were administered. Then, they received the conventional
classroom error-correction on speaking skills. After 12 weeks of instruction,
Movers speaking test was done again by 16 chosen students, and the post-test for
speaking was implemented. The raw data gathered was subject to statistical
analysis. The findings and results collected are evidence to support the effectiveness
of action research on oral error correction.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................ii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... iii
Table of contents ........................................................................................................ iv
List of tables and figures ...........................................................................................vii
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Objectives of the study ............................................................................................ 2
3. Research questions .................................................................................................. 2
4. Scope of the study ................................................................................................... 2
5. Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 2
6. Structure of study ................................................................................................... 3
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Error correction .................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1. Definition of errors ........................................................................................... 4
1.1.2. Types and sources of errors............................................................................... 4

1.1.3.The complexity of error correction .................................................................... 6
1.1.4. Corrective feedback…………………………………….. .... …………………7
1.1.5. Oral error correction for young learners………………………………...……8
1.2. Young learners of English……………………………… ... ……………………9
1.2.1. Characteristics of Young learners of English………… .... ……………...……9
1.2.2. Teaching Speaking skills to Young learners…………… .... ………...........…10
1.3. Action research…………………………………………………...……...……11
1.4. Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Setting ................................................................................................................ 15
2.1.1. English House language center, Hanoi ........................................................... 15

iv


2.1.2. Participants ...................................................................................................... 15
2.2. Data collectioninstruments ................................................................................. 15
2.2.1. Pre-test and post-test ....................................................................................... 15
2.2.2. Interview for teachers…… .............................................................................. 16
2.2.3. Classroom observation .................................................................................... 17
2.3. Data collection and analysis ............................................................................... 17
2.4. Action plan ........................................................................................................ 18
2.5. Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. Pre-test result… .................................................................................................. 20
3.1.1. Phonological errors ......................................................................................... 20
3.1.2. Grammatical errors.......................................................................................... 21
3.1.3. Lexical errors .................................................................................................. 21
3.2. Interview result………..………………….…………………………...………22
3.2.1.Common oral errors... ...................................................................................... 22

3.2.2. Suitable time to correct spoken errors............................................................. 23
3.2.3.Ways to correct errors.. .................................................................................... 24
3.2.3.1. Phonological errors…………………………………………………...…...24
3.2.3.2. Grammatical errors………………………………………...……………...24
3.2.3.3. Lexical errors…………………………………………...…………………24
3.3. Classroom observation result ............................................................................. 25
3.3.1. Teacher A ........................................................................................................ 25
3.3.2. Teacher B ........................................................................................................ 26
3.3.3. Results ............................................................................................................. 27
3.3.3.1.The type ofthe errors... .................................................................................. 27
3.3.3.2. Corrected and ignored errors.. ...................................................................... 28
3.3.3.3.Correction practices.. .................................................................................... 30
3.4. Post test result .................................................................................................... 31
3.4.1. Phonological errors ......................................................................................... 32

v


3.4.2. Grammatical errors.......................................................................................... 32
3.4.3. Lexical errors .................................................................................................. 33
3.5. Discussion… ...................................................................................................... 33
PART THREE: CONCLUSION
1. Recapitulation ....................................................................................................... 36
2.Implications ............................................................................................................ 36
3. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................ 38
4. Suggestions for further study ................................................................................ 38
REFERENCES

.................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX.. ............................................................................................................ 44

vi


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Action research cycle

13

Figure 2.1: Steps of data collection procedures

18

Figure 3.1: The most common oral errors

22

Figure 3.2: Ways to correct oral errors

25

Figure 3.3: The percentage of types of errors

28

Figure 3.4: The frequency of errors

29

Figure 3.5: Distribution of corrected and ignored errors

29

Figure 3.6: Corrected errors

30

Figure 3.7: Errors between the pre-test and post-test result

32

Table 2.1: Action plan

19

Table 3.1: Results of the pre-test

20

Table 3.2: Appropriate time to correct errors

24

Table 3.3: Demographic Teacher A

25

Table 3.4: Teacher A, Class No. 1

26

Table 3.5: Demographic Teacher B

26

Table 3.6: Teacher B, Class No. 2

27

Table 3.7: Oral errors made by participants at the post-test

31

vii


PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.Rationale
Over the last few years, the role oforal error correction has received
considerable attention amongst language learners. Many teachers have found that
correcting learners‟oral error is the most challenging task. Some following issues
are raised: which errors should be corrected, how to correct these errors and when
correction should be made without demotivating learners (Lourie, 2010). Compared
to other skills, speaking needs greater effort from the learners because it must
follow a process and to get feedback to see the immediate improvement.
While there are still negative views toward teaching children as some people
may consider teaching English to young learners is as doing little as singing songs,
playing games and telling some stories, this thesis may bring a new perspective on
teaching English to young learners, as it is not easy to deliver the lesson no matter

what the level of the learners is.
Secondly, it is asserted that error correction is one of the dilemmas for
teachers. Brown (2000) suggests that the feedback a learner gets upon making errors
benefits him in developing the knowledge. The danger of over-correction is that
students may lose motivation and even destroy the flow of the class or the activity
by correcting every single mistake (Jones, 2004).
Finally, there are a number of researchers studying error correction; however
there are not many researchers having studied on young learners. As other learners,
young learners also make mistakes when speaking or writing or even make more
mistakes. Being a teacher who often works with young learners, I experience the
difficulties of learners and always desire to help them improve their language
ability.
With all the reasons mentioned above, this thesis was chosen and seriously
carried out in order to find out common spoken errors made by young learners and
effective ways to correct these errors and to improve the way of teaching and
learning, especially in term of speaking skills for young learners.

1


2. Objectives of the study
The objectives of this study is to identify common spoken errors of young
learners at English House Centre. Besides, this paper also targets at finding out and
evaluatingthe way teachers in English Housedeal with young learners‟ spoken
errors.
3. Research questions
In order to identifyyoung learners‟errors,the study has been conducted to
answer the following research questions:
1. What are common spoken errors made by young learners at English
House, Hanoi?

2. How language teachers treat spoken errors made by young learners at
English House, Hanoi?
3. How effective are the methods of correcting spoken errors to young
learners applied by teachers at English Housecenter?
In this study, the researcher uses action research to examine the educational
practice systematically, and to be relevant with the objectives, it is done within the
learning and teaching environment – that is, with the students and teachers – on
questions that deal with the educational matters.
4. Scope of the study
This study focuses on errors which young learners often make in speaking
English and how corrective feedback is applied at English House centre, Hanoi.
Therefore, other approaches in teaching speaking skill for this kinds of students in
other institutions will not be included in this study.
5. Significance of the study

2


This research was completed to find out common spoken errors andassess the
effectiveness of using a corrective feedback in improving speaking skills for young
students at Movers level.It is believed that the findings of this study will be the
reference for other teachers as well. Besides, it would be duplicated in other classes
at the centre for further benefits to other students. Last but not least, it would be a
primitive road for others‟ further studies in the future.
6. Structure of study
This research will include three main parts, which are introduction,
development and conclusion.
Part one: Introduction - presents the rationale, objectives, research questions, scope,
significance and organization of the study.
Part two: Development – includes 3 chapters

Chapter 1 – Literature review – provides theoretical basis for error correction
(definition, types and sources of errors, the complexity of errors correction,
corrective feedback and oral errors correction for young learners) and young
learners of English (characteristics, teaching speaking skills to young leaners)
Chapter 2– Methodology – consists of setting such as an overview ofEnglish
Houselanguage center, participants. Research method, data collection instruments,
data collection, data analysis procedure and action plan are described.
Chapter 3– Findings and discussion – reports the findings of the survey and
discusses the prominent aspects.
Part three: Conclusions - includes recapitulation, implications, limitations of the
study and recommendations for further studies.

3


PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Error correction
1.1.1. Definition of errors
“Error” has been a favour topic in the field of English teaching for a certain
period of time. According to Thornbury (2002), error is a consequence of
insufficient knowledge of the target language learnt, while Richards and Renandya
(2002) consider errors as the practice of using target language in a faulty way in
terms of a native speaker norms.James (1998) judges an error according to
grammatical correctness and he connects errors to ignorance, inferring that error is
the study of linguistic ignorance, in which the learners do not recognize and how to
deal with their ignorance.
There is a distinction between „error‟ and „mistake‟. According to Luoma
(2004), an error is made because the learner does not know what is correct, so it
cannot be self-corrected, whereas mistakes can be self-corrected when the learner

pays attention during their language performance.Duff (1990) states that mistakes
are caused by lack of attention while performing the second language, and Chavez
(2003) agrees on this as he adds that the mistakes are appeared during conversation
because of the hesitations, lapses in memory or the slip of the tongue. Lyndsay
(2006) suggests two ways to distinguish between an error and a mistake, the first
one is to examine the consistency of learner‟s performance, to see if he sometimes
use the correct form or the wrong one. If he always uses it incorrectly, then it is an
error. The second way is to ask the learner to correct his own utterance, and if he
can perform self-correction, then it is a mistake.
1.1.2. Types and sources of errors

4


As regards the types of errors, the model of Lyster and Ranta
(1997)focuseson three following types of errors: grammatical, phonological and
lexical errors.
-

Grammatical errors:This error occurs because of the deviation of learner‟s
utterance from the grammatical rules of the language. This can be related to
sentence structure, verb tense, preposition, article or singular/plural form.

-

Phonological errors:These errors are the confusion caused by either the
native or the target language, in which the speakers can have wrong
pronunciation or stress of the sentence. In other words, they are the pattern of
sound errors in the process that children are learning to talk.

-

Lexical errors: These errors are the results of the speakers not knowing the
appropriate translation of the target word, which leads to wrong word choice
during conversation.

In the study of Richards (1971), he discusses some error types as follows:
-

Interference errors: which are caused by the impacts of the first language or
second language that the learners obtained. This can be the native language or
the other foreign languages that the learner is studying and this causes errors
when they study another language.

-

Intra-lingual errors:such as overgeneralization or ignorance of rules restriction.
Overgeneralization is defined as the creation of a deviant structure on the basis
of the experience on structures in the target language, while the ignorance of
rules restriction is the failure to recognize and obtain the restrictions of existing
structures.

-

Developmental error: this includes the hypotheses that the learners try to build
up about the target language, but on the basis of the limited knowledge. Lindsay
(2006) also agrees that this error is generated due to the faulty perception of the
learners on the language.

5

Likewise,Corder (1974) describes some types of errors on the basis of sources of
errors as follows:
-

Language transfer or interlingual interference: This error is caused by mother
tongue as the learners apply knowledge from one language to another. Mother
tongue has big influence in learner‟s language since there are both positive and
negative influence.Hyland& Annan (2006) state that students who are fluent and
good at expressing ideas in their native language can also have imagination and
ideas when studying foreign language, whereas at the same time being
dependent too much on mother tongue can also lead to grammatical error or
wrong pronunciation.

-

Intralingual interference: this kind of errors occurs when the learners have not
really acquired the knowledge, and sometimes the students fail to recognize the
rules which should be applied (Bordag, 1998).

-

False hypotheses: the learners do not fully understand a distinction in the target
language (for example: the use of "was" as a marker of past tense in "One day I
was travelled.")

In the context of the study, classifications on the types of errors of Lyster and Ranta
(1997) are applicable.
1.1.3. The complexity of error correction

The issue of students' errors in the second language and how to deal with
them still remains a concern for most ESL teachers. Lightbown (1985) also
mentions that "isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in changing
language behaviour".
In particular, the progress of correction may not as successful as what the
teacher expects. There are some of the factors related to the lack of success of error
correction: the complexities determining what constitutes an error in a specific
situation, and in consistently representing to the learner and having the learner
correctly interpret what the error is.

6


Tsang (2004) states that teachers mostly used recast and explicit correction in
error correction but they may not lead students to repair while repetition was the
most frequent types of feedback which resulted in repairs. During his research,
phonological errors were commonly repaired through the recast and explicit
correction, whereas negotiation works for most grammatical errors. Also, it is
asserted that using different types of feedback may be more effective than giving
only single correct form. In contrast, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) analyze
whether the error correction strategies facilitate students‟ learning and whether the
students find these corrections effective.
1.1.4. Corrective feedback
Ellis (2009) considers corrective feedback as the feedback that the students
obtain on the linguistic error that they generated in the process of studying a second
language. Lyster & Sato (2013) confirms that corrective feedback is the pivotal role
in process of promoting individual growth, and the input of language learning
mostly generated from teachers, learning materials and students in learning
environment. It means that the teachers must realize their correction behaviors in
the classroom and create the way they correct spoken errors. They also suggest

some corrective feedback types as follow:
-

Explicit correction:Teachers indicate the student‟s error in a direct way and
provide them a correct form (Sheen, 2011).For example:
S: Two book
T: …Two books

-

Recast: Teachers correct error in implicit way. Teachers give the correction, but
do not point out the students‟ utterance is incorrect. For example:
S: He don‟t like chocolate.
T: Yes, he doesn‟t like chocolate.

-

Clarification request: Teachers give a sign that the utterance has not been
understood such as hmm? Or Excuse me?, Pardon?

7


-

Metalinguistic clues: Teachers ask the question like “Do we say it like that?”,
give students some information to correct their utterance without giving a
correct form.

-

Elicitation: Teachers elicits the correct form directly or offer them “Can you say
that again?”

-

Repetition: Teachers repeat the students‟ utterance but change the intonation.
Teachers say the error with a rising tone. For example:
S: Do you likes my picture?
T: likes?
Two studies by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998) were applied in the

children from 9 to 11 years old gave a result about expansions. Expansions which
are a type of recast did not cause students‟ uptake. Lyster (1998) also points that
recast causes ambiguous to learners. Therefore, it was assessed as the ineffective
corrective feedback in communicative classroom, however it is commonly used by
teachers when correcting pronunciation and grammatical errors. According to
Siauw (2016), the most effective type of feedback for lexical error can be
elicitation, clarification request, repetition and metalinguistic feedback, while recast
can be commonly used for mispronunciation and grammatical errors.
1.1.5. Oral correction for young learners
There are some different views about spoken correction to young learners.
Richards (2015) states that if there is a perfect teaching methodology, the errors can
never be appeared, while other researchers argue that we live in an imperfect world,
therefore errors must appear as it is natural process of learning. Corder (1967) also
argues that these points of view are consistent with the same theoretical viewpoint
about

language

and

language

learning,

psychologically

behaviorist

and

linguistically taxonomic. Their application, to language teaching is best known as
the audio-lingual or fundamental skills method. From his viewpoint, most errors are

8


not generated from the negative transition from native language, and with children,
we often do not pay much attention to their errors.
In addition, some papers contend that implicit corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching classrooms can have a direct influence on
learners‟ output accurateness (Spada, 1990).

Additionally, Speidel (2000) also

mentions that when teachers give implicit corrective feedback such as extend,
expand, reformulate, recast, they provide corrections and modeling to learners‟
linguistic errors.
However, Chaudron (1977) asserts that the most effective corrective

feedback will first locate errors accurately and then immediately reject them, under
the form of error repetition with emphatic tone. Then after that, the metalinguistic is
provided to motivate the learner‟s self-correction. Even if the student cannot
perform self-correction, the original question was rephrased, and other students in
the class were asked to help.
1.2. Young learners of English
1.2.1. Characteristics of Young learners of English
As established by Phillips (1999), the term „young learners‟ refers to children
from first year of schooling, which include children from six or seven years old to
twelve years old. In this research, young learners mean children aged 8-10 who are
mostly at the level Starters and aim at Movers – TESOL Cambridge Test. In
pedagogical side, the most important aspect in teaching young learners is the
characteristics of young learners.
Klein (2005) and Coltrane (2003) characterized young learners based on their
naughtiness, noisiness, ability to pay attention and hands-on learning experiences.
Agreeing with these characteristics, Cakir (2004) adds that young learners are
bodily kinesthetic and visual learners, therefore they can obtain knowledge best by
seeing and making things.

9


Additionally, Hung (2012) describes the characteristics of children who study
English as follows:
-

Children are active and need physical movement: Children do not have
ability to sit quietly and listen to the teachers, however they will be more
willing to try and persist at new activities than adult learners. Therefore,
teaching for children should include different physical activities to keep

them active during the lesson.

-

Children do not have much attention: They have short attention so that
teachers should give various activities to break their boredom.

-

Children are comfortable with routines and enjoy repetition: Children can
receive new things quickly, but easy to forget. Teaching children need
repetition regularly to help them remember the lesson.

-

Children learn through watching, listening, imitating and doing things:
While adults learn through acquiring and analyzing knowledge consciously,
children learn through intuition. Therefore, the activity to enhance the
observation

and

imitation

must

ensure

the

accuracy,

especially

pronunciation.
-

Children are playful and creative: Children are curious, active and creative
in a natural way. They desire to discover the world around them with
different things and communicate with people. They satisfy these through
the physical activities and experiencing things.

From these characteristics of young learners, Hung (2012) claims that spoken
interaction is the main goal in teaching English for children. Everything that is done
in the classroom must contain a communicative intent. These skills will be practised
through different activities (such as playing games, singing, telling stories…),
different types of study (such as class work, pair work, group work…), different
kinds of exercises… to achieve the target.
1.2.2. Teaching speaking skills to young learners

10


Speaking is the progress of building and sharing meaning through the use of
verbal and non-verbal communication, in different contexts. Speaking is a vital part
of foreign language learning and teaching. According to Ur (2000), speaking is the
most important of all 4 skills because when a person is claiming that he knows a
language, he must be able to communicate in that language. Likewise, Philips(1999)
states that speaking in young learners is not only a skill, but also a medium in which
language is understood, practiced and learnt.

However, teaching speaking to young learners may also have difficulties
arised from the physical imperfection, such as the difficulty from the teeth (The
baby teeth has fallen out while the adult teeth has not been replaced), or some may
wear braces (Slattery, 2001). On the other hand, Pinter (2006) also states that
children slowly develop the capability to interpret the meaning and are more
concerned with their own understanding than with the needs of their listeners,
therefore the teacher must have careful selection and preparation.It is expected that
teachers of young learners are assumed to equip the students with activities that
involve
tasks and activities such as playing games, singing through songs, poem, rhyme and
chant.
Djigunovic (2012) highlights that when teaching children, they can easily
adopt the attitudes from people around them such as parents, siblings and teachers –
who have significant impacts on their behavior. When teaching speaking skill, in
which the interaction between the teachers and the learners is maximized, the
learners can easily follow the teacher‟s behavior and obtain their words, therefore
all activities in the class must be treated seriously. Similarly, it is required that
teachers must plan to use specific words and phrases related to the activities set for
the learners, which will enable them to learn quickly and in a meaningful way.
Since young learners can imitate adults, teachers must play alongside their students,
using the new vocabulary and helping them to practice.

11


1.3. Action research
Action research has become a popular term in the field of education. Action
research is an interactive way to collect information. It can be taken in a school
setting. It can be used to search for the real problem in school, to improve an
instruction or increase student‟s achievement. Wallace (1998) states that action

research is a strategy for teacher to compose changes and improve professionally by
analyzing on their own everyday teaching. Likewise, Harmer (2002) contends that
action research is a series of procedures that the teachers get involved in due to their
effort of improving teaching styles, and this helps them evaluate the success of
certain activities. It is also defined that this term comprises of two main definitions,
in which research refers to the analysis and evaluation of the methods being used,
while action is the practice of using curriculum, teaching and learning (Kemmis,
1982).
In his research, Patrick (2013) states that action research has “practical,
problem-solving emphasis” to improve “educational practice”, therefore it is
reflective. Also, since it involves analysis from particular educators, with the
students and their own colleagues, not by any other people, people in the research
can learn from their experiences. Additionally, action research is participative and
members of the system are required to participate actively, so it can comprise vital
learning outcomes and have effective problem-solving solutions, which can build up
scientific knowledge and theory (Aoife, 2008). Therefore, these are major reasons
why action research is selected.
In a model of action research by Ferrance (2000), there are six steps: identify the
problem, gather the data, interpret data, act on evidence, evaluate the results, next
steps.

12


Problem
identification
Data
collection

Spiral to the

next steps

Data
interpretation

Evaluation
on results
Act on
evidence

Figure 1.1: Action research cycle
As illustrated in the figure above, the process starts with the identification of
the problem area. This is followed by gathering data, from which a pre-test during
thirty minutes is executed so as to confirm the problem stated in stage. The
researcher also did some interview with teachers in the center to gather the data.
After that, the data collected from the pre-test and the interviews is analyzed to
create the hypothesis and from that to compare and contrast with the post-test. The
next step of this action research study is to act on evidence, in which the design of a
plan will allow to make a change. Then, there will be evaluation on results to see if
the data provides supporting evidence, and if it does not support, then what else can
be done to have better result. The final step of the action research is to plan for
additional improvements, revisions in the next steps.
1.4. Chapter summary
In this chapter, the distinction between error and mistake is classified, and
there is a literature review about types and sources of errors. Specifically, Lyster
and Ranta (1997) research is used to identify types of errors in teaching speaking
skills for young learners. Since errors cannot be disappeared as it is natural process
in learning a language, types of corrective feedback such as explicit correction,

13

recast, clarification request, metalinguistic, elicitation and repetition are considered
to correct students‟ errors. Additionally, along with different characteristics in
comparison with adults, teaching a language, especially speaking skill to young
learners, may encounter difficulties such as lack of attention and physical
imperfection. Hence, it may require thorough analysis and preparation from the
teachers when delivering the lessons.

14


CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Setting
2.1.1. English House centre, Hanoi
English House is a language center and founded in 2012 in Hanoi. The center
majors in teaching students from primary to high school. Teaching young learners is
the strength of English House centre as more than half of students in English House
are young learners from 6 to 11.
The researcher has been working there since December 2014. Being a
teacher in English House language center, the researcher has specialized in teaching
young learners for two years.
2.1.2. Participants
There are sixteen students who take part in this research. They are groups of
students from 8 to 10years old. All of them are primary students in Hanoi. They
have learned at thiscenter over 1 year. When starting studying in the center, their
levels were at Starters. Theyhave takenthis course to develop their English and
achieveMovers level at the end of the course.Their course book is Kid‟s Box 4by
Caroline Nixon and Michael Tomlinson, published by Cambridge University Press
(2009). When starting the research, the participants have finished six among eight

units of this course. At the end of this course, the children will take the Movers test
to assess their English level.

2.2. Data collection instruments
2.2.1. Pre-test and post-test
First of all, a pre-test is conducted to identify the students level of English
and common spoken errors. The course students are taking part in targets Movers
level. For this reason, the researcher uses Mover sample test – Speaking part

15


(Appendix 3) for pre-test and post-test. In this test, students are asked to involve in
4 parts:
Part 1: Students identify five differences between two given pictures.
Part 2: Students are given the name of the story and they must tell a story based on
the given pictures.
Part 3: Students look at a series of four pictures., odd one picture and say why it is
different.
Part 4: Students talk about their weekends by answering the question “What do you
do at the weekends?”
2.2.2. Interview for teachers
To collect more data about error correction, the researcher will interview five
teachers who are teaching English to young learners in English House centre. The
interview will mention the waysthe teachers deal with and correct their students‟
errors. As established by Jaber (2002), the interview provides deep information and
knowledge that the researcher is looking for, and for those interviewees who have
experience in their own field, this can provide more accurate results and evaluation.
Therefore interviews with teachers are conducted. Along with the identification of
the common oral errors,the most noticeable concerns about error correction will be

“When” and “How” it is taken. In terms of the question „When‟, error correction
can be carried out in two strands, which are immediate or delayed corrections. In
terms of the „How‟, the teachers will be questioned about the way they correct their
students‟ errors.
There are some main questions during the research process, which are:
-

What are the common oral errors of young learners at English House centre?

-

Which oral errors should be corrected?

-

When do you correct your students' errors?

-

How do you correct your students‟ errors?

16


2.2.3. Classroom observation
Ary (2009) asserts that the major advantage of observation in doing a research is
that it provides an actual record of what is happening, and this is extremely useful
with young learners since all things can be observed naturally. Therefore, after
doing the interview, the researcher continues to observe to see how the teachers‟
correct students‟ error. After collecting all the data, it is analyzed to design the

action plan. The plan is shown that how the teacher deal with each kind of error.
This action plan is applied in the researcher‟s class.
The following four questions are those on which the observations were based:
Q1. What is frequency of teachers „correction in the classroom?
Q2. When do teachers correct learner errors?
Q3. Which errors do teachers correct?
Q4. How do teachers correct learner errors?
2.3. Data collection and analysis
In terms of finding students‟ oral errors, the errors are noted, counted and finalized.
The result is stored to be compared with the final result after the post test. The
interview and the class observation is conducted. Based on this result and the
participants, the researcher chooses the most suitable corrective feedback and apply
in the next ten weeks. After ten weeks, the post-test result is compared and
contrasted in terms of percentage. The improvement of students in terms of
accuracy will show the effectiveness of corrective feedback.

17