10th grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities at do son boarding high school, hai phong

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

----------***----------

ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ

th

10 GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’
ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES AT
DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT NỘI TRÚ
ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI CỦA GIÁO
VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI
M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code : 601410

HANOI - 2011


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST
GRADUATE STUDIES

----------***----------

ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ

th

10 GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’

ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES
AT DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG

THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT
NỘI TRÚ ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI
CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI
M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 601410

Supervisor : Khoa Anh Việt, M.A.

HANOI - 2011


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1

1. Rationale of the Study..................................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the Study............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Scope of the Study........................................................................................................................... 2
4. Research Questions.......................................................................................................................... 2
5. Methods of the Study...................................................................................................................... 3
6. Significance of the Study................................................................................................................ 3
7. Design of the Study.......................................................................................................................... 3
8. Summary............................................................................................................................................ 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 5
1. Definition of “Error”....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Types of Errors.................................................................................................................................. 6
3. Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake”.............................................................................. 7
4. Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction............................................................................. 8
4.1. Perspectives on Errors................................................................................................................. 8
4.2. Perspectives on Error Correction.............................................................................................. 9
5. The Role of Oral Error Correction............................................................................................. 10
6. Techniques of Oral Error Correction......................................................................................... 12
6.1. Explicit Correction..................................................................................................................... 12
6.2. Recasts.......................................................................................................................................... 12
6.3. Prompts......................................................................................................................................... 13
6.3.1. Clarification Requests............................................................................................................ 13
6.3.2. Elicitation.................................................................................................................................. 13
6.3.3. Metalinguistic Clues............................................................................................................... 13
6.3.4. Repetition.................................................................................................................................. 13
6.3.5. Finger-counting....................................................................................................................... 14
6.3.6. Facial Expression.................................................................................................................... 14
6.3.7. Gestures..................................................................................................................................... 14
6.4. Delayed Correction.................................................................................................................... 14

v

7. Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction........15
8. Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY......................................................................................................... 18
II.1. Methodology............................................................................................................................... 18
II.1.1. Context of the Study.............................................................................................................. 18
II.1.2. Research Questions................................................................................................................ 19
II.1.3. Subjects of the Study............................................................................................................. 19
II.1.4. Data Collection Instruments................................................................................................ 20
II.1.5. Data Collection Procedure................................................................................................... 21
II.2. Findings and Discussion.......................................................................................................... 21
II.2.1. Students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction..................................... 21
II.2.2. Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral error correction:................. 23
II.2.3. Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors:......................................... 25
II.2.3.1. Preferred types of errors to be corrected....................................................................... 25
II.2.3.2. Preferred timing of error correction................................................................................ 27
II.2.3.3. Preferred techniques of error correction........................................................................ 27
II.2.3.4. Preferred forms of error correction................................................................................. 30
II.3. Summary...................................................................................................................................... 31
PART C: CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 32
1. Summary of the Findings............................................................................................................. 32
2. Recommendations for Teachers’ Error Correction in Oral Classroom Activities...........33
2.1. Knowing about the Students.................................................................................................... 33
2.2. Working out Appropriate Error Correction Strategies....................................................... 34
2.3. Creating a Supportive and Pleasant Classroom Environment.......................................... 36
3. Limitations of the Study............................................................................................................... 36
4. Recommendations for Further Research.................................................................................. 36
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................. 38

APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................................................. I
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS............................................................................... IX
APPENDIX 3: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION NOTES........................................................ X


vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
L2: Second Language
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
TESOL: Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages


vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Students’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning
Table 2: Students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction
Table 3: Students’ level of understanding of teachers’ oral error correction
Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction
Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected
Table 6: Students’ preferences for amount of error to be corrected
Table 7: Students’ preferences for timing of error correction
Table 8: Students’ preferences for error correction techniques
Table 9: Students’ most favored and least favored correction techniques
Table 10: Students’ preferences for error correction forms

1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the Study
The teaching and learning of English language is always on its progress to search
for effective methodologies. One of the issues which has constantly attracted great concern
and discussion among many linguists, educational researchers and teachers is the
correction of learners’ errors.
It has been widely accepted that error making is inevitable and it appears essential
to the language learning process. The correction of learners’ errors has also been
recognized as an integral part of language teaching. So far, a number of studies have been
conducted to seek for effective methods of correcting learners’ errors with the aim of
fostering more successful language learning. The research findings have revealed that
learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards instructional methods have a great influence on
their achievement (Schulz’s, 1996, 2001). Teachers need to know learners’ beliefs about
language teaching and learning because a mismatch between students’ expectations and the
realities they encounter in the classroom can prevent improvement in language acquisition
(Horwitz, 1988).
In reality, such mismatch has been found in many settings including Vietnam, and
as a result, it has brought about unsatisfactory learning outcomes. This problem is not an
exception in the context of Do Son Boarding High School where I have been working as a
teacher of English. From my professional experience and personal observation, I have
realized that the teachers seem not to have paid much attention to what their students think
and feel about oral error correction, whereas the students come to class with a variety of
beliefs, learning styles and language proficiency, and they respond in different ways to the
teachers’ error treatment. Rather, the teacher-centered instruction tends to be dominant and
the instructional techniques seem to follow “one size fits all” mode. These factors have
been proved to affect students’ progress in language learning in general and in speaking

English in particular.
Rooted from the problem existing in my context and the awareness of the
significance of oral error correction as well as the need for teachers to learn about their
students’ perceptions and preferences for error treatment, I would like to conduct an
th

investigation into “10 grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in


2

classroom oral activities at Do Son Boarding High School, Hai Phong”. The fact that there
has been limited research into this subject matter in the context of Vietnam has also
inspired me to carry out this study. It is hoped that the research outcomes will be able to
assist teachers to gain more insights into the issues of oral error correction so that they can
adjust or adopt appropriate methods catering for students’ needs with the aim of improving
language learning.
2. Aims of the Study
The specific aims of the study are:
•

to find out what students think about the correction of oral errors delivered by their

teachers such as whether they like their errors to be corrected, and how important they
think teachers’ error correction to their learning of English.
•

to understand how students respond to the current methods of correcting oral errors

employed by their teachers, for example, to what extent they understand their teachers’

correction, and how effective they think their teachers’ instruction is.
•

to explore in what ways students expect their oral error correction to be delivered (e.g.

which errors to correct, when to correct, how to correct) with the aim of matching teachers’
instruction and students’ expectations so that teachers can make best use of their methods
to enhance language learning.
3. Scope of the Study
It is clear that oral error correction is a broad issue. A study on students’ attitudes
towards oral error correction apparently opens for a variety of subject matters which cannot
be entirely discussed within the scope of a minor thesis. Therefore, in this study, I would
like to restrict the focus to investigating the attitudes towards teachers’ methods of spoken
th

error correction among a group of 10 grade students at Do Son Boarding High School in
Hai Phong city.
4. Research Questions
In an attempt to achieve the aims stated above, the present study aims to address
three research questions:
1. What are the students’ perceptions of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error

correction?


3

2.

What are the students’ reactions to the current practices of teachers’ oral error

correction?
3. What are the students’ preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors?

5. Methods of the Study
In order to seek for answers to the research questions, various sources of data were
used from a survey questionnaire, classroom observations and interviews.
The main instrument for collecting data is a survey questionnaire aimed to discover
what the students think about the role of errors and error correction, how they evaluate the
current practices of teachers’ error correction, and how they prefer their errors to be
corrected in classroom oral activities.
The study also included classroom observations to investigate how error correction
was delivered in the classroom to see if there was anything not revealed or anything that
confirms comments made by the students in the questionnaire.
Semi-structured interviews with a small group of students were added to the
instruments described above to get deeper insights into students’ attitudes and expectations
for teachers’ error correction methods.
6. Significance of the Study
The issue of teacher’s oral error correction has presented certain problems for both
EFL teachers and students due to the mismatch between teachers’ actual practices and
students’ expectations. As a result, the teachers’ error treatment in classroom oral activities
has not reached adequate efficiency. This study therefore hopes to find out reasonable
answers to the research questions so that teachers can gain more awareness of the
significance of students’ beliefs and their influence on the language teaching and learning.
By comparing students’ attitudes and preferences with actual classroom practices, teachers
are hoped to find out their own appropriate ways for delivering oral error correction to their
students.
7. Design of the Study
The thesis contains three main parts as follows:
•

Part A provides an introduction of the study including the rationale, the aims, the

research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the study organization.


4

•

Part B consists of two chapters. Chapter 1 presents the theoretical background for the

thesis including definitions and classifications of error; distinction between the notions of
“error” and “mistake”; major perspectives on the role of errors and error correction in
general and of oral error correction in particular; common techniques of oral error
correction; and review of previous studies on students’ attitudes and preferences for
teachers’ oral error correction. Chapter 2 describes the methodology underlying the
research including the background information about the context and subjects of the study,
the instruments used to collect the data, the procedure of data collection, and detailed
description of data analysis and discussion of the study results.
•

Part C presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical suggestions for

teachers delivering error correction in classroom oral activities. The limitations of the study
and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this part.
8. Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the study with specific reference to the
rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the
study organization. The next chapter will provide the theoretical background for the study.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT


5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is to lay the theoretical background for the thesis by reviewing
relevant authoritative studies. Initially, the term “error” is defined and categorized followed
by the distinction between the terms “error” and “mistake”. Besides, major perspectives on
the place of errors and error correction in general and of oral error correction in particular
are discussed. The following are description and illustration of some common correction
techniques. Finally, the chapter critically reviews previous studies on students’ attitudes
and preferences for teachers’ oral error correction.
1. Definition of “Error”
There have been different definitions of “error” in language learning. It is typically
defined as a deviation from a standard form of the language. Hendrickson (1978:387)
views error as “an utterance, form or structure that a particular language teacher deems
unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in reading discourse”.
According to Dulay, Burt & Krashen (1982:183), errors are seen as “the flawed side of
learner speech or writing … that deviate from some selected norm or mature language
performance”. Norish’s (1983:7) also considers error as a deviation arising “when a learner
has not learnt something and consistently “gets it wrong”.
In foreign and L2 teaching situations, however, the “deviation” aspect of the
“errors” from a given “standard” of the language presents some problem. Allwright and
Bailey (1991) explain that the target language model at which the EFL learners are aiming
may not be the native speaker norm for the teaching is mostly done by non-native speaking
teachers. Even L2 learners living in the target culture do not always adopt the model of the
target language. The global varieties of the English language also influence the conception

of correctness. As discussed by Quirk et al (1985, cited in Mishra 2005:38), the problem
“loses its gravity against the emergence of international English: in place of a single
standard many regional varieties as standards can coexist”. Allwright and Bailey (1991)
additionally states that changes in language teaching methodology also have an effect on
deciding what an error is. In the light of the communicative approach the learners’
communicative success is considered a fit criterion to decide on errors. That is, errors only
occur if they block communication. If communication is possible despite a few slips and


6

mistakes which may be viewed as errors from syntactic point of view, it will be considered
that there is no error in the expression (Mishra, 2005).
Defining error is generally a complicated matter facing linguists, researchers and
teachers. As concluded by Chaudron (1986b:69), “the determination of errors is clearly a
difficult process that depends on the immediate context of the utterance in question as well
as on an understanding of the content of the lesson, the intent of the teacher or student, and
at times, the prior learning of the students”.
2. Types of Errors
Errors have been classified in many ways basing on psycholinguistic origins,
language skills, language components and the CLT point of view.
Basing on psycholinguistic considerations, Richard and Littlewood group errors
into three types as “intralingual”, “interlingual” and “developmental”. According to
Littlewood (1984), interlingual errors occur due to the learners’ transferring of rules from
the mother tongue, whereas intralingual errors are the result of the learner’s processing of
the target language in their own terms and these occur due mainly to overgeneralization
and simplification. Developmental errors, on the other hand, are those which “illustrate the
learner attempting to build up hypotheses about the target language” (Richard, 1974:174).
However, Dulay et al (1982) observe that most developmental errors are intralingual errors.
For them developmental errors are errors similar to those made by children learning the

target language as their first language.
Categories of errors can be made in the four skill areas of the language: speaking,
writing, reading and listening.
Errors are also categorized on the basis of language components such as
phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic, lexical and stylistic errors.
Under the CLT point of view which considers errors as those which block
communication, Burt and Kiparsky (1972) distinguish between “global” and “local" errors.
Global errors are those that affect overall sentence organization and significantly hinder
communication. Local errors are those that affect single elements in a sentence but do not
usually hinder communication significantly.
The complexification of errors in the language classroom is necessary for
understanding the diverse universe of error possibilities in any given language context. In


7

other words, to compare error correction types without consideration of error feature
differences may completely distort the reality of how error correction functions in
classroom contexts.
3. Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake”
There are ways for teachers to distinguish between the terms “error” and “mistake”
in spite of the fact that it is quite difficult to signify a clear differentiation.
According to Corder (1967, cited in Richards 1974: 24-25), the term “error” refers
to the error of competence which is due to the learner’s defective knowledge of the target
language. He uses the term “mistake” to indicate the error of performance which is a result
of “memory lapses, physical states such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as
strong emotion”. The errors of competence are considered systematic while the errors of
performance unsystematic. Corder asserts that mistakes are not important to the language
learning process and they can be self-corrected by the learners with almost absolute
assurance. Whereas, errors are hardly amended by the learners themselves and it is

therefore necessary for the teacher to help the learners reconstruct their incomplete
knowledge of the language.
Edge (1989) and Ellis (1997) make a somewhat similar distinction between errors
and mistakes: if a learner is able to correct his own utterance, then he has made a mistake;
if he cannot correct it in his own English but the teacher thinks that the class is familiar
with the correct form, he has made an error. Brown (2000) also adopts the term “mistake”
to refer to a performance error made by language learners while producing a known
structure incorrectly through a slip of tongue or an unsystematic guess. Mistakes due to
such performance lapses do not mean incompetence but some sort of flaw in the process of
producing speech and thus they can be self-corrected.
Mistakes should be carefully distinguished from errors of a second language
learner. Nevertheless, it may not always be an easy task indeed. As stated by Brown
(2000), an error can be self-corrected if the deviation is pointed out to the speaker. It is
neutrally observed only when learners have the competence to correct the errors. However,
when there is no self-correction, mistakes or errors cannot be identified.
4. Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction


8

There are basically two different viewpoints on learners’ errors in the fields of
second and foreign language learning. On the one hand, errors are considered undesirable
and a sign of failure either on the learner’s or the teacher’s part and therefore to be avoided.
On the other hand, making errors is regarded as an integral and essential part of the
learning process. Along with the stream of these different schools of thoughts, the
correction of errors is also viewed differently. Some believe that error correction can be
effective and beneficial to language learning. The others, however, cast doubts on the role
of error correction: whether it helps language learners improve their learning. In this
section, a presentation of major views on errors and error correction from the perspectives
of pedagogy and L2 acquisition theories will be made.

4.1. Perspectives on Errors
In many traditional language classes errors are regarded negatively and have to be
eradicated. They are considered to cause loss of respect for both teachers and learners and
making too many errors is severely disapproved (Norrish, 1983). The errors are believed to
be the fault of the learners and could be prevented. This probably leads to anxiety and
hesitancy among learners to say anything for fear of making mistakes and being thought as
foolish by other learners or by the teacher.
Contrary to the traditional outlook on errors as discussed above, a great deal of
recent research in the field of first and second language acquisition regards errors as
positive aids to learning. In a language classroom, the error made by learners is considered
not evidence of failure to learn but an essential and integral part of learning a language
(Norish, 1983; Davis & Pearse, 2000; Dulay & Burt, 1974, cited in Zhu, 2010). Generally,
errors are believed to be unavoidable yet indicator of the progress in language learning.
Making errors indicates that learners are actively participating in the language learning
process (Islam, 2007). An error, according to Yule (1997, cited in Islam, 2007:7), “is not
something which hinders a learner’s progress, but is probably a clue to the active learning
progress behind made by a learner as he or she tries out ways of communicating in the new
language”. Also, errors indicate learners’ stage which reflects parts of the lesson that have
been understood and to be improved (Hedge, 2000). As stated by Corder (1981 cited in
Richards 1974), a learner’s errors are significant in three different ways. Firstly, they show
the teacher whether he undertakes a systematic analysis, how far the learner has progressed


9

and reached the goal and, accordingly, what remains for him to learn. Secondly, they
provide the researchers with evidence of how language is learnt and acquired, what
strategies or methods the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly,
they are essential to the learner himself since error making is regarded as an instrument the
learner uses to learn the language and to test his hypotheses about the nature of the

language he is learning.
There has been a change in the attitude to errors from strictly negative to more
reasonably positive. Errors are no longer viewed as having damaging effect on the
students’ interest to learn the language but an integral part of their learning process. This
positive and tolerant attitude towards errors has also affected the perspectives on the
correction of errors which will be discussed in the following section.
4.2. Perspectives on Error Correction
Attitudes towards the correction of learners’ errors have also been a source of
debate among many foreign and second language scholars, researchers and teachers.
The debate of error correction has emerged from calls for correction of learners’
errors at all cost. Brooks (1960:56) state that “like sin, error is to be avoided … the
principal way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response
and a presentation once more of the correct model”. Additionally, as stated by Corder
(1967, cited in Richards 1974:20), “if we were to achieve a perfect teaching method the
errors would never be committed in the first place, and that therefore the occurrence of
errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacy of our teaching techniques”. Therefore,
teachers strive to prevent their students from making errors by immediate correction which
they believe would help students be aware of their errors and not repeat them. Some
researchers are more concerned with teacher correcting learners’ errors in order to prevent
fossilization. In their viewpoints, errors have to be dealt with or otherwise can fossilize and
teacher correction is the way to save learners from fossilization (Han, 2004).
The emphasis put on an absolute capability to eradicate errors has encountered a
number of opposing ideas. The strongest argument was made by Krashen (1982) who
claims that error correction has no use and may even have a harmful effect on language
development. He explains that anxiety associated with error correction can raise a learner’s
affective filter, which impedes fluency in the L2. In sharing this view, Terrel (1977) points


10

out that affective rather than cognitive factors are of primary concern in the language
classroom, and the correction of learners’ errors is negative in terms of motivation,
attitudes, and embarrassment. Generally, error corrections are considered “a serious
mistake” that can do more harm than good because they affect learners in a negative way
and they could result in learners avoiding difficult constructions for fear of making
mistakes and trying to focus more on form than on content (Krashen, 1982). The
recommendation in this perspective is that all error correction be eliminated because it is
unnecessary, ineffective and even counterproductive.
Among the debates for and against error correction in the extreme is a preference
for selective correction of errors. In this perspective, error correction can be effective and
quite beneficial to language learning provided that it is done in an appropriate manner.
Nunan (1989) asserts that one of the functions of the teachers in the classroom is to correct
learners’ errors. However, it is essential to note that correcting all the errors that learners
make is impossible. When they are overcorrected they may become discouraged and
confused, which would probably put an end to communication. Ur (1996) also affirms that
a teacher trying to correct all mistakes might also end up with learners feeling discouraged
and depressed and this will take the interest away from learning. Additionally, as a result of
Hendrickson’s (1978) research, learners do not like to be corrected for each minor error
they made because this practice destroys their confidence to use the target language. The
teacher must therefore be sensitive and not correct the learner too much, as this can take
the attention away from aspects of content and distract more than help.
The correction of errors is apparently a complicated issue which has been open to a
great deal of discussion. Despite its controversy, there appears to be a growing consensus
among the majority of researchers and language practitioners that error correction plays an
important role in the process of second and foreign language acquisition. The debate has
shifted to the question of how to make best use of error correction for the sake of more
beneficial learning.
5. The Role of Oral Error Correction
When it comes to error correction it specifies correcting both oral and written
errors. This study, however, is particularly concerned with the correction of oral errors.

11

Oral errors, as described in Lennon’s (1991:72) “occur where the speaking fails to
follow the pattern or manner of speech of educated people in English speaking countries”.
Over the past few decades, the correction of oral errors in second and foreign language
learning has been explored in many studies. Since Chaudron’s (1977) influential
descriptive research on oral error correction, investigations into corrective feedback have
played an important role in both theory-construction and pedagogy. More recently, Lyster
and Ranta’s (1997) study of oral error correction in the context of immersion classrooms
has strongly influenced later developments of the matter. It has provided the basis for more
comprehensive and systematic research into oral error correction in SLA and increased
great interest in the application of different types of error correction in language teaching.
The role of oral error correction has become a controversial issue among many
linguists, researchers and language practitioners. Some researchers imply that teachers
should not correct students’ spoken errors. Truscott (1999), for example, provides an indepth investigation against delivering oral error correction on grammar. He mentions some
obstacles facing teachers and learners in giving and receiving effective oral error
correction, including the ability to identify the error without ambiguity, to evaluate the
intended meaning correctly, and to deal with the error within the context in an appropriate
way. The supporters of this debate include Allwright (1975), Fanselow (1977), and
Hendrickson (1978). However, Lyster, Lightbown, and Spada’s (1999) disapprove of
Truscott’s argument. They claim strong support for the provision of oral error correction
and consistently report a desire for it. A number of recent studies have also demonstrated
the positive effect of oral error correction. They have shown that the correction of oral
errors can contribute to L2 language acquisition. (Sheen, 2010).
Oral error correction in ESL and EFL classrooms is regarded as an instrument for
teachers to immediately help students correct their errors so as to prevent fossilization, “the
process by which non-target forms become fixed” (Ellis, 1997:353), and to achieve better
results. The effectiveness of that instrument, however, depends on the approaches to

language teaching. Traditionally, errors have been considered negative, yet this view has
changed since a communicative approach was adopted. The shift has been from a formfocused teaching approach, which puts more emphasis on correctness regarding
pronunciation and grammar, to meaning-focused approach, which pays more attention to
vocabulary and meaning and tolerates more mistakes and errors. Both approaches are


12

significant to English language teaching and therefore need an even distribution. It is of
great importance that the teacher is aware of when form-focused instruction is appropriate
and in what situations meaning-focused instruction would have a better effect in order to
balance fluency work, without correction, with accuracy work, where correction is used
positively.
The correction of oral errors obviously requires much consideration because of the
fact that spoken errors in normal communication often happen even when people are
speaking in their mother tongue. The place of oral error correction in the classroom
depends on what is considered the main objective of the target language learning that
teachers expect their students to achieve.
6. Techniques of Oral Error Correction
There are different ways of delivering error correction in language classrooms. This
study utilizes three major types of error correction suggested by Lyster and Mori (2006):
explicit correction, recasts, and prompts. Explicit and recasts supply learners with target
reformulations of their non-target output. Prompts, on the other hand, include a variety of
signals other than alternative reformulations that push learners to self-repair (e.g.
elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests and repetition). Such techniques as
using gestures and facial expression proposed by Edge (1989) and Mumford and Darn
(2005) are also included in this classification. Following are further description and
illustration of these error correction types which can be applied for the correction of oral
errors in language classrooms.
6.1. Explicit Correction: The teacher clearly indicates that what the student said was

incorrect and then provides the correct form using such terms as “I’m sorry … is wrong. /
You shouldn’t say … / You should say … / We don’t say … / We (can) say … / Pay attention
to … / There is a mistake in …”
Example 1:

S: Last weekend we go to the countryside.

T: I’m sorry, “go” is wrong. You should say “went”.
6.2. Recasts: The teacher does not directly point out that the students’ utterance was
incorrect but repeats all or part of the students’ utterance using the correct form.
Example 2:

S: I have a history /'hɪstɔri/ lesson at 8:55 on Thursday.


13

T: A history /'hɪstri/ lesson.
6.3. Prompts
6.3.1. Clarification Requests: The teacher indicates that the student’s utterance has been
misunderstood or contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or reformulation is
required. A clarification request includes such phrases as “Pardon? / I don’t understand …
/ What do you mean by …?”
Example 3:

T: How often do you watch TV?
S: Fourteen a week.
T: Fourteen what?

6.3.2. Elicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking

questions (e.g. “How do we say that in English?”), by pausing to allow the student to
complete the teacher’s utterance, or by asking the student to reformulate his or her
utterance (e.g. “Please say that again.”)
Example 4:

T: What kinds of film do you like?
S: I like cartoons and …er … amusing …er…
T: So an amusing film, we’ll call that a …?

Example 5:

S: I find horror films really interested.
T: You find horror films really ….?

6.3.3. Metalinguistic Clues: The teacher poses questions (e.g. “Do we say it like that?”) or
provides information related to the formation of the student’s utterance.
Example 6:

S: I prefer London to New York because it has more park.
T: Do we say “park” here? “Park” is singular. It must be in the plural after
“more”.

6.3.4. Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error and changes intonation to draw
student’s attention to it.
Example 7:

S: My father enjoys listen to classical music.
T: Listen?

Sharing the techniques for correcting oral errors, Edge (1989) and Mumford and

Darn (2005) suggest some other types of prompts namely finger-counting, expression and


14

gestures. These techniques help students realize their errors and get a chance for selfcorrection.
6.3.5. Finger-counting: This technique can be used when a sound, a syllable in a word or
a word in a sentence is missing.
Example 8:

S: If we had had more time, we could have visit all the places.
T: Well, vi…sit…?

(As the teacher says “vi…sit…”, he holds up three fingers of one hand to show that the
word has three syllables in it. He then uses the other hand to point to the first finger as he
says “vi” and the second finger as he says “sit”. As he points to the third finger, he pauses
for the student to add the “ed”.)
6.3.6. Facial Expression: The teacher points out the student’s error with a questioning
expression on his face such as turning face to the side and frowning.
6.3.7. Gestures: The teacher shows the student where the error is by using gestures with
his head (e.g. shaking head, turning head or pulling ear as if he did not hear quite properly).
Also, the teacher can create his own correction symbols with hands and fingers (e.g.
crossing hands over to show wrong order, making a scissors motion with fingers to cut out
unnecessary words, using a circling hand motion to prompt continuous, holding thumb and
forefinger close together to show a small word missing). These hand signs may take time
for students to learn but they can bring humor to the task of correction and avoid the need
for words.
6.4. Delayed Correction
As suggested by Edge (1989), it is important for some of the time that students are
not corrected but simply encouraged. She explains that students need the experience of

uninterrupted and meaningful communication when they are trying to use the language in
real situations. Thus, encouragement should be paid more attention than correction if the
teacher desires to bring about fluency in language use. When the teacher hears errors, he is
advised to take note of them. If there are common errors, the teacher can write them on the
board after the activity and ask for correction from the class. In case teacher hears a lot of


15

errors in important points she has been trying to teach, she need not worry much about
correction but think of other ways of presenting the same point again.
In short, a good strategy for correcting oral errors can boost student motivation,
build confidence, and create a satisfying learning experience. However, the nature of such
an oral error correction strategy remains unclear and even controversial. In order to make
best use of the error correction techniques, teachers should take many factors into great
consideration, especially those related to the learners such as their needs, language
proficiency and learning attitudes.
7. Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction It

is obvious that individual students differ from each other in their attitudes
towards errors and error correction. The differences are proved to have great impact on the
effectiveness of teachers’ error correction strategies. Thus, being aware of students’
attitudes and expectations will help teachers to choose the appropriate ways of error
correction and to make best use of their choice.
There have been a number of studies on students’ perceptions, beliefs and
preferences for the correction of errors (e.g. Schulz, 1996; Mackey et al, 2000; Ancker,
2000; Schulz, 2001; Salinki, 2001; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Park, 2010).
Concerning students’ views on the role of oral error correction, Schulz (2001)
conducted a survey to 122 Colombian foreign language instructors, 607 Colombian foreign
language students, 92 U.S. foreign language instructors, and 824 U.S. EFL students. The

findings revealed that students from both cultures expressed strong expectations for
teachers to correct oral errors during class, with 94% of U.S. and 95% of Colombian
students.
In another study, Markey et al. (2000) investigated how learners perceive error
correction and whether learners’ perceptions affect their language development. The
researchers found that learners were generally accurate about their perceptions of
phonological and lexical correction; however, learners’ perceptions of morphosyntactic
correction were usually confused with correction about semantics or lexis.
Researchers have compared teachers’ and students’ perceptions of error correction
and found mismatches between them. Schulz’s (1996, 2001) studies revealed that students’
attitudes toward error correction were more favorable than their teachers’ attitudes; that is,


16

learners want more error correction. Schulz argues that “such lack of pedagogical face
validity could affect learners’ motivation” (p.349). Teachers, therefore, need to explore
their students’ perceptions and expectations to close the gap and maximize the effects of
teaching.
Noticeably, Ancker’s (2000) action research into teachers’ and students’ attitudes
towards error correction in 15 countries also found a big gap between the teachers and
students. For example, when being asked whether teachers should correct every error
students make when using English, only 25% of teachers answered “yes” while 76% of
students answered “yes.” The teachers explained that correction could have negative
impact on students’ confidence and motivation, whereas the reason for students’
expectation was the importance of learning to speak English correctly. Ancker suggests that
teachers should establish clear objectives in lesson plans, discuss the learning process with
students, and employ alternative types of correction that can be beneficial to students to
close the gap between teachers’ and learners’ expectations.
Students’ expectations for error correction methods were varied in different

investigations. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) investigated how teachers and students
perceive the effectiveness of oral error correction. The study conducting with ten teachers
and eleven students in an EFL context showed the result that the students found constant
correction unhelpful because it inhibits language production. This result complied with the
one from Salinki’s (2001) study in which 89 students participating in a survey say that they
do not like to be corrected while they are talking for fear of being nervous or lose their
confidence. However, students wished to be corrected by their teachers but in a more
selective and explicit way with a focus on a smaller number. Students expressed that
teachers should devote more time to each correction, and they should also use more
strategies and resources when correcting oral errors.
One of the latest studies on learners’ preferences for error correction was carried out
by Park (2010) with 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English speaking teachers in
Northern California. The findings of the survey showed that both the teachers and students
agreed that errors should be treated, but students wanted more correction than their
teachers thought. The students regarded immediate error correction that can interrupt the
flow of conversation as effective. Both the teachers and students believed that serious and
frequent errors should be treated, but the students wanted to receive more error treatment,


17

even on infrequent and individual errors. Elicitation, explicit feedback, and implicit
correction were the most favored types of error correction among the students. The
students with high anxiety welcomed all sources of error correction, but those with low
anxiety did not value their peers’ correction.
There has been an increased interest in the area of students’ attitudes and
preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors. Researchers imply that it is necessary for
teachers to ascertain students’ specific perceptions, beliefs and expectations in order to
adjust teachers’ instructional practices appropriately. However, the previous studies have
mainly focused on the settings of colleges and universities. In Vietnam in particular, to my

knowledge, there is also relatively little research into this issue in the contexts of high
schools. Thus, the present study is one attempt to add to the literature on this important
topic.
8. Summary
This chapter has presented a review of the literature relevant to the study through a
critical synthesis of the related materials. Specifically, the literature review illustrates
essential perspectives on error correction and useful techniques of oral error correction in
the classroom so that we can get more accurate insights and directions. Also, the chapter
discusses the significance of students’ beliefs and attitudes towards language teaching and
learning in the way that it enhances teachers to make best use of the methods for their
effective language education.

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
In the previous chapter, I have reviewed relevant literature to form the theoretical
background for my study. This chapter presents the methodology I chose for the


18

achievement of the aims of the study, the analysis of the data collected and the discussion
of the findings.
II.1. Methodology
II.1.1. Context of the Study
The study was conducted at Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city. The
school is situated in the district of Do Son and is only ten years of age. It has a total of 388
students and 53 teachers from different parts of the city.
There are three teachers in the English group of the school. They are all female
aged between 29 and 33 and they have at least five years of teaching experience. Two out
of three teachers were trained at Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies
and one of them is now studying for M.A degree at this university.

th

The research was carried out with the participation of 10 grade students. Most of
them come from the remote islands and rural areas around the city and they generally have
rather poor educational standard. They find learning English, especially speaking skill,
really challenging.
The English language teaching and learning in my school follow the national
curriculum - just like many other schools around the country. English is taught as a
compulsory subject and, specifically, as one of the core subjects in the national
examinations at the end of compulsory education. The textbook and the syllabus for
English are prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training. The “Tieng Anh 10”
course book is designed under the light of communicative approach in which students learn
not only the primary aspects of language such as grammar, vocabulary and phonology but
also engaging classroom activities through the 4 skills: listening, speaking, reading and
writing.
In reality, the teaching and learning of English in my school has not reached much
satisfaction as required due to both internal and external factors. Concerning the matter of
English speaking in particular, the situation seems to be more problematic. Although they
have been learning English for at least four years, most of the students find it really
difficult to speak in English and thus spoken errors are made very often. This is due to such
constraints as students’ lack of language proficiency, low motivation in speaking activities,
large-sized classes, not well-equipped classrooms, and the neglect of speaking


19

improvement due to pressure of examination success on the part of both teachers and
students.
Towards successful language teaching and learning, it is essential for the teachers
to investigate the issues concerned and find out effective solutions.

II.1.2. Research Questions
As stated in the first part Introduction, this study was designed in an attempt to
search for answers to the following questions:
1.

What are the students’ perceptions of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error

correction?
2. What are the students’ reactions to the current practices of their teachers’ oral error

correction?
3.

What are the students’ preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors?

II.1.3. Subjects of the Study
The subjects in this study were 120 students both male and female from three
classes of grade 10 in Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city. Half of them have
been learning English since grade 6 and the rest since grade 3. These students vary in terms
of background, ability, interest, learning styles and attitudes, and so forth. Of the three
classes, class 10C has the most incompetent students.
The teacher participants consisted of two female teachers from the English group of
my school. One teacher has been teaching English for 9 years and the other 5 years. Both
of them voluntarily and enthusiastically participated in this study.
th

There are reasons for my choice of 10 grade students as the subjects of this study.
On the one hand, students of grade 10 are more eager to speak English in class than those
of 11

th

or 12

th

grades and thus they are believed to have more interest in the issue

investigated and invest more thoughts for it. On the other hand, findings of the study are
hoped to provide teachers with practical and useful recommendations as soon as possible
for better teaching and learning in the forthcoming school years.
II.1.4. Data Collection Instruments
In order to obtain data for the study, such instruments as survey questionnaire,
semi-structured interviews and classroom observations were employed.