(Luận văn thạc sĩ) an investigation into the application of teachers’ feedback strategies for the second year students’ speaking errors at people’s police college i

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



CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
APPLICATION OF TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK
STRATEGIES FOR THE SECOND- YEAR
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ERRORS AT
PEOPLE’S POLICE COLLEGE I
(Nghiên cứu về việc áp dụng các chiến lược sửa lỗi
của giảng viên đối với các lỗi nói của sinh viên năm thứ hai
tại trường Cao Đẳng Cảnh Sát Nhân Dân I)
M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2014


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



CHU THỊ THANH HUYỀN

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
APPLICATION OF TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK
STRATEGIES FOR THE SECOND- YEAR
STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ERRORS AT
PEOPLE’S POLICE COLLEGE I
(Nghiên cứu về việc áp dụng các chiến lược sửa lỗi
của giảng viên đối với các lỗi nói của sinh viên năm thứ hai
tại trường Cao Đẳng Cảnh Sát Nhân Dân I)
M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dương Thu Mai , Ph.D

Hanoi, 2014


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this thesis is entirely my own work. I have provided
fully documented references to the others’ work. The material in this thesis has
not been submitted for assessment in any other formal course. I also accept all the
requirements of university relating to the retention and use of M.A Graduation
Thesis deposited in the library.

Hanoi, September 2014
Student’s signature

Chu Thị Thanh Huyền

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the process of writing this thesis, I have been fortunate to receive
supports and assistance from a variety of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Ms. Duong Thu Mai, PhD, for her enthusiastic encouragement and
guidance throughout the research. Without her well-designed plan and meticulous
review of the drafts, this thesis would not have been completed.
I also wish to thank all the professors for enriching my knowledge about
English teaching methodology and research methodology. My great thanks are
also sent to all the staff members of the faculty of Post graduate studies who gave
me the best environment to fulfill my thesis.
I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to my colleagues
at People’s Police College I (PPC I) for their great supports and constructive
suggestions in completing this research.
Last but not least, my thanks are extended to the second-years students at
PPC I who took part in this study, for it was their hard work that provided the
useful raw data.

ii


ABSTRACT
English is regarded as a basic and important subject at People’s Police
College I (PPC I) and students here are expected to achieve the pre-intermediate
level in English as well as the ability to communicate in English in normal
contexts after graduation. However, their speaking skills still have many

limitations and need much more instruction from their teachers.
The study aims at exploring teachers’ feedback strategies for the secondyear students’ speaking errors at PPC I.
Three instruments, including questionnaire for teachers and students, semistructured interviews with teachers, and class observations were employed to
achieve the purposes of the study. The subjects involved in this study were 16
teachers, including 15 females and 1 male, who have at least 3 years experience
in teaching English at PPC I and second- year students in four classes. They were
invited to participate in the survey questionnaire, interviews and class observation.
Other participants are the 256 students in four classes which were observed
during eight speaking lessons. Among them, 38 students who received individual
feedback and another 40 representative students who received feedback for the
whole class were asked to evaluate their teachers’ feedback through questionnaire
for students.
It was induced in the study that most teachers of English at PPC I used a
variety of feedback strategies towards their students’ speaking errors and the way
they applied those strategies was varied. As regards the students, they showed a
strong need for teachers’ feedback as well as general satisfaction with the
feedback they received.
The findings suggest some suitable and effective ways for teachers in
applying feedback strategies to make certain positive changes in their teaching
methodology as well as to help students improve their English competence.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURE, TABLES AND CHARTS .......................................viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1. Rationale of the study ............................................................................... 1

2. Aims of the study...................................................................................... 3
3. Research questions ................................................................................... 3
4. Scope of the study..................................................................................... 3
5. Methods of the study ................................................................................ 4
6. Significance of the study........................................................................... 4
7. Design of the study ................................................................................... 5
Summary .................................................................................................. 5
PART B – DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. 6
1.1. Communicative language competence and second language acquisition 6
1.1.1. Communicative language competence ................................................ 6
1.1.2. Second language acquisition ............................................................... 8
1.2. Language errors ................................................................................... 10
1.2.1. Definitions of language errors ........................................................... 10
1.2.2. The role of errors in SLA.......................................................... ......... 11
1.2.3. Classification of errors ...................................................................... 13
1.3. Overview of feedback strategies............................................................ 14
1.3.1. Definitions of feedback....................................................................... 14
1.3.2. The importance of feedback .............................................................. 16
1.3.3. Teachers’ beliefs about feedback ...................................................... 17
1.3.4. Students’ attitudes towards feedback ................................................ 18
1.4. Speaking errors .................................................................................... 19
1.4.1. The definition of speaking errors....................................................... 19
1.4.2. The classification of speaking errors ................................................. 19
1.5. Feedback strategies for speaking errors............................................... ..20
iv


1.5.1. Types of feedback strategies for speaking errors....................... ........ 20
1.5.2. The selection of errors to give feedback ........................................... 22

1.5.3. The selection of people who give correction ..................................... 24
1.5.3.1. Teacher- correction ........................................................................ 24
1.5.3.2. Peer- correction.............................................................................. 24
1.5.3.3 Self- correction ............................................................................... 25
1.6. Review of the previous studies on feedback strategies for students’ speaking
errors .......................................................................................................... 25
Summary .................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 28
2.1. Setting of the study .............................................................................. 28
2.2. Research Design .................................................................................. 28
2.3. Participants .......................................................................................... 29
2.4. Data collection instruments .................................................................. 30
2.4.1. Questionnaire .................................................................................... 30
2.4.1.1. Questionnaire for the teachers ........................................................ 30
2.4.1.2. Questionnaire for the students ........................................................ 31
2.4.2. Semi-structured interviews with teachers .......................................... 31
2.4.3. Class observation .............................................................................. 32
2.5. Data collection and analysis procedures ............................................... 32
2.5.1. Data collection procedures ................................................................ 32
2.5.2. Data analysis procedures................................................................... 34
Summary ............................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................... 36
3.1. Research question 1: Second- year students’ most frequent speaking errors
................................................................................................................... 36
3.1.1. Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire. ............................................ 36
3.1.2. Findings from Teachers’ interviews .................................................. 36
3.1.3. Findings from class observation ........................................................ 37
3.2. Research question 2: Teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies
for students’ speaking errors. ...................................................................... 38
v

3.2.1. Teachers’ beliefs in feedback ............................................................ 38
3.2.1.1. Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire. ......................................... 38
3.2.2. Teachers’ application of feedback strategies ..................................... 40
3.2.2.1. Findings from Teachers’ questionnaire. ......................................... 40
3.2.2.2. Findings from Teachers’ interviews. .............................................. 46
3.2.2.3. Findings from class observation ..................................................... 48
3.3. Research question 3: Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback
strategies for their speaking errors. ............................................................. 50
3.3.1. Findings from Students’ questionnaire. ............................................. 50
Summary .............................................................................................. 53
PART C: CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 55
1. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 55
2. Pedagogical implications ........................................................................ 56
3. Limitations and suggestions for further research ..................................... 58
REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................. I
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................ IV
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................. V
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................ VI
APPENDIX E ........................................................................................... VII
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................. IX

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PPC I: People’s Police College I

L2: Second Language
SLA: Second Language Acquisition
ESL: English as Second Language
EFL: English as Foreign Language
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

vii


LIST OF FIGURE, TABLES AND CHARTS
Chart 3.1. Students’ most frequent speaking errors from teachers’ questionnaire.
........................................................................................................................ 34
Chart 3.2. Students’ speaking errors from class observation ............................ 35
Table 3.1. Teachers’ beliefs about feedback strategies for students’ speaking
errors ............................................................................................................... 36
Chart 3.3. Comparison of types of errors teachers give feedback for individuals
and for the whole class .................................................................................... 38
Chart 3.4. Characteristics of errors for teachers to base on to give feedback .... 39
Chart 3.5. Teachers’ frequency of giving feedback .......................................... 40
Chart 3.6. Time of giving feedback for individual and the whole class ............ 41
Chart 3.7. Types of feedback from Teachers’ questionnaire ............................ 42
Chart 3.8. Error corrector for individual and the whole class ........................... 43
Chart 3.9. Time of giving feedback from class observation ............................. 46
Chart 3.10. Teachers’ use of feedback types from class observation ................ 46
Chart 3.11. The selection of correctors from class observation ........................ 47
Table 3.2. Questionaire for students receiving individual feedback. ................ 48
Table 3.3. Questionaire for students receiving feedback for the whole class...49-50
Table 3.4. Illustration of 8 class observations of students’ speaking errors and
teachers’ feedback ............................................................................................ ix

viii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
This part presents the rationale of the study, the aims, the research
questions, the scope, the methods, the significance, and the design of the study.
1. Rationale of the study
Theoretically, many researches and journals about language learning and
teaching reveal that students’ errors in general and speaking errors in particular
are commonly seen in any English class, including such non- native contexts as in
Vietnam. Numerous researchers in linguistic field have shown their viewpoints
about errors in language learning process. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982, p.138)
state that “people cannot learn language without first systematically committing
errors”. Also, Edge (1989, p.14) points out that learner errors are “learning steps”.
Similarly, some researchers such as Bartram and Walton (1991), and Widdowson
(1990) affirm that errors are evidence of how much learners achieve their goals in
the target language. From these points, it can be said that language errors play an
important role in language learning and in assessing learners’ performance. The
issue of language errors is closely related to teacher’s feedback in English class
because feedback “has the properties of informing, regulating, strengthening,
sustaining, and error eliminating” (Han, 2001, p. 6). Although students’ speaking
errors are inevitable and the feedback for their errors is not required explicitly in
any book, it is crucial that students’ speaking errors should be paid attention
carefully and seriously by the teachers of English. It is believed that teachers’
application of feedback will have certain effects on students’ progress. However,
it can have both negative and positive effects on students’ learning. Consequently,
it is worth doing research on teachers’ feedback strategies for students’ speaking
errors in order to enhance students’learning success and achievement.
Practically, numerable studies have been conducted on language errors or
written error correction and some on oral correction in classroom environments.

After all the studies, the application of feedback strategies for speaking errors has
still been a controversial issue for many researchers. Some reseachers show
negative viewpoints on error corrections: Pienemann (1985, p37) states that “The
teachability hypothesis predicts that instruction can only promote language

1


acquisition if the interlanguage is close to the point when the structure to be taught
is acquired in the natural setting”, which means that if teachers point out and
correct the errors that the learners are not yet ready to learn, this error correction
has little value. Similarly, Clampitt (2001) asserts that no matter how many times
a certain grammatical structure is corrected, until the learners are ready to learn
and internalise the structure, they will not be able to use it properly on a regular
basis. Furthermore, in terms of effect of error correction, Truscott (1996) insists
that grammar correction has negative and harmful effects, because it discourages
and demotivates learners. However, it is felt that the negative standpoints on error
correction do not come from itself, but the unexpected consequences are resulted
from the way correction or feedback is delivered. Meanwhile, the supporters of
feedback or error correction prove their viewpoints persuasively. The results of
Carroll and Swain’s study (1993) claim that various types of feedback, including
explicit and implicit corrections are helpful for L2 learners to acquire abstract
linguistic generalisations. They assert that negative feedback can help the learners
“narrow the range of possible hypotheses that can account for the data” (p.358).
Moreover, Nunan and Lamb (1996, p.68) assert that making errors and subsequent
teacher corrections “can provide the learners with valuable information in the
target language”.
Specifically, at People’s Police College I, English is taught as one of the
compulsory subjects like other colleges or universities in Vietnam. The aim of the
English course in this college is to provide students with basic knowledge of

English language and the ability to communicate in English. However, it is a
matter of fact that students at PPC I have a lot of difficulties in speaking skill
because of some reasons: lack of vocabulary, low motivation, large- scale class,
and fear of speaking errors. Consequently, students here make many speaking
errors and find it hard to express their ideas in English. These errors were
commonly and repeatedly seen in all classes. The real situation leads to a
hypothesis that the way teachers of English at PPC I deal with students’ speaking
errors may have great effect on students’ speaking ability.
To conclude, the study proceeds from three main reasons, the first of which

2


relates to the theoretical concern about the importance of teachers’ feedback for
students’ errors in their learning success and achievement. The second impetus is the
existing controversies regarding the effects of feedback among reseachers. The last
ground is the practical hypothesis at PPC I that the application of teachers’ feedback
strategies affects students’ speaking competence to some extent.
2. Aims of the study
The study is aimed at:
- Finding out the most frequent speaking errors that the second- year students
make in speaking class at PPC I.
- Exploring teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback strategies for their secondyear students’ speaking errors.
- Investigating the second- year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of
feedback strategies for their speaking errors so as to propose some
suggestions for teachers to make use of feedback strategies to enhance
students’ speaking performance.
3. The research questions
With the given aims, the study was conducted to answer the three following
questions:

1/ What are the most frequent speaking errors made by the second-year students at
PPC I?
2/ What are teachers’ beliefs and application of feedback strategies for students’
speaking errors at PPC I?
3/ What are the second-year students’ attitudes towards teachers’ use of feedback
strategies for their speaking errors?
4. Scope of the study
The study was conducted at People’s Police College I, Ha Noi. It mainly
focused on investigating the second-year students’ most frequent speaking errors,
teachers’ feedback strategies for speaking errors, and students’ attitudes towards

3


teachers’ feedback. Thus, students’ uptake or progress from feedback is beyond
the scope of this study.
Given the scope of the study, data for this study were collected from
questionnaire for teachers and students, semi-structures interviews with teachers
and eight observations of English speaking lessons taught to the second-year
students at PPC I.
5. Methods of the study
This study employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods in
order to get a more detailed and comprehensive picture about what is investigated.
First, quantitative data were collected from closed questions in
questionnaire for both teachers and students as well as class observation. This
sourse of data helped investigate second-year students’ most frequent speaking
errors, teachers’ application of feedback strategies for students’ errors as well as
students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback.
Second, qualitative data were drawn out from six semi-structured
interviews with teachers for more specific information and explanation about

teachers’ use of feedback strategies in their classrooms as well as an open
question in student questionnaire about their own further evaluation on teachers’
feedback.
6. Significance of the study
The study has been conducted with the expectation that the findings will
help teachers of English at PPC I acknowledge the significance of giving feedback
for students’ speaking errors, students’ most frequent speaking errors as well as
have a deeper look at the feedback strategies used in both viewpoints and
practices. Moreover, the study will help teachers be aware of students’ attitudes
after they receive feedback. Particularly, it will provide teachers of English with a
number of useful pedagogical implications in terms of feedback, which
encourages them to apply feedback strategies for each specific class effectively so
that teachers’ feedback can help enhance students’ speaking performance.

4


7. Design of the study
The study consists of three main parts:
Part A – Introduction - presents the rationale of the study, the aims, the research
questions, the scope, the methods, the significance and the design of the study.
Part B - Development includes three chapters:
Chapter 1 - Literature Review - reviews the theories on communicative
language competence, second language acquisition, errors and feedback strategies
for students’ speaking errors.
Chapter 2 – Methodology - describes the settings of the study, research design
and the participants. Moreover, this chapter shows how the researcher applied the
data collection instruments and the procedure of conducting the study.
Chapter 3 - Findings and discussions- presents and discusses the findings of
second- year students’ most frequent speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use of

feedback strategies as well as students’ attitudes towards teachers’ feedback.
Part C- Conclusion summarizes all findings explored and brings out useful
suggestions for the teachers’ selection of feedback strategies for students’
speaking errors. An overall picture of what has been done in this study and
suggestions for further studies are also included in this part.
Summary
This chapter presents the rationale of the study, which is aimed to examine
second- year students’ speaking errors, teachers’ beliefs and use of feedback
strategies and students’ evaluation on teachers’ feedback. In order to achieve those
aims, teacher and student questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and class
observation were used as the instruments of data collection. To bring about the
support for the study, the next chapter reviews the relevant literature.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature that is closely related
to students’ speaking errors and teachers’ feedback strategies. This chapter
consists of six sections. The first section is about communicative language
competence and second language acquisition. The next two sections present an
overview of general language errors and feedback strategies. The fourth and fifth
sections discuss issues in speaking errors and feedback strategies for speaking
errors. The last section reviews studies on feedback in second language
acquisition in terms of similarities and differences.
1.1. Communicative language competence and second language acquisition
1.1.1. Communicative language competence
As globalization has gained its momentum and the world has become more

closely connected, learning English as a second or foreign language has been a
prominent part of our daily lives. It seems that one of the highest goals in learning
English towards English learners nowadays is to achieve “communicative
competence” in English. Now that almost all education systems, including the
ones in non-native countries, have launched a major initiative to improve English
language teaching and learning in favor of Communicative Language Teaching
approach, this goal has become more suitable than ever before. The notion of
communicative competence has drawn much attention from numerous language
researchers and educators for such a long time. The idea of communicative
competence was originally introduced by Chomsky in his research in 1965. He
made a distinction between competence and performance. Chomsky supposed that
competence is the linguistic knowledge of the idealized native speaker, and
performance is the actual use of language in concrete situations. However, the
viewpoints of Chomsky were challenged when Hymes (1966) pointed out that
Chomsky’s linguistic competence lacks consideration of the most important
linguistic ability of being able to produce and comprehend utterances which are
appropriate to the various contexts in which they are made. In other words, Hymes

6


found that Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance too
narrow as well as too idealized to describe actual language behavior as a whole.
Canale and Swain (1980) continued to examine communicative competence
in language learning and teaching but with intensive viewpoints. Communicative
competence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social
behaviors, and it requires the active involvement of the learner in the production
of the target language (Canale and Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia et al., 1995;
Hymes, 1972). As Canale & Swain (1980) denote, communicative competence “is
composed minimally” of the three competences which made up their 1980

framework (p.27), those are grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic
competence. Then sociolinguistic competence was further divided by Canale
(1983) into two separate components: sociolinguistic and discourse competence.
He defined communicative competence as “the underlying systems of knowledge
and skill required for communication” (Canale, 1983: 5). The four areas of
communicative competence they identified are clearly understood as follows:
Grammatical competence means the acquisition of phonological rules,
morphological rules, syntactic rules, semantic rules and lexical items. Today it is
usually called linguistic competence. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the
learning of pragmatic aspect of various speech acts, namely, the cultural values,
norms, and other socio-cultural conventions in social contexts. Discourse
competence is the knowledge of rules regarding the cohesion (grammatical links)
and coherence (appropriate combination of communicative functions) of various
types of discourse. Strategic competence is to do with the knowledge of verbal
and nonverbal strategies to compensate for breakdowns such as self-correction
and at the same time to enhance the effectiveness of communication.
To help students achieve communicative competence, CLT has been made
full use of in various contexts with some main features: it focuses on meaning
rather on form, communicative competence is the desired goal, learner-centered is
emphasized, fluency is given priority over accuracy, students are expected to
interact with other people, either in oral practice, through pair and group work, or

7


in their writing, intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in what is being
communicated by the language, and task-based is made use of.
Because CLT focuses on fluency rather than accuracy, students’ errors are
not corrected explicitly because this may divert them away from the main concern
of the expression and negotiation of meanings. It is a common belief that errors

will disappear as they get more input along the course. However, that involves the
risk of the ‘fossilisation’ of students’ errors (Candlin: 1988). Teachers cannot rule
out the possibility that some of the language errors might become permanently
incorporated into their language. Therefore, when applying CLT in their teaching,
teachers are advised to select suitable techniques and tasks flexibly. The choice of
techniques and learning tasks in CLT is not an arbitrary decision, but is firmly
grounded in principles of learning as they are motivated by research in second
language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology. Learning what
constitutes effective ways of learning and teaching initially requires intensive
training and staying in touch with current SLA research findings, which will be
discussed in the next part.
1.1.2. Second language acquisition
In the era that the need for learning a second or foreign language has
become so great, second language acquisition is the field that is always of great
interest to many language researchers and teachers. Krashen (1983) is among
scholars that singled out the differences between acquisition and learning by
explaining that acquisition supposedly is a subconscious process that results in
fluency while learning is conscious process that involves learning rules and
structures. Krashen indicate that there are three internal elements involved in
second language acquisition, which are a “filter”, an “organizer” and a “monitor”.
Specifically, the “filter” deals with how the learner is influenced in a social
context and how he reacts in various social environments. The “organizer”
determines the arrangement of the learners’ language system. The “monitor”
operates the conscious learning part where the learners correct their speech
according to their age. It can be drawn some main points in Krashen’s, which are:
SLA is the process that learners’ cares are the meanings of language but not

8

language form,

SLA can happen in various social environment besides

classrooms, students can make errors in their acquisition process, and it also
involves students’ error correction.
Another commonly- accepted theory about SLA comes from Ellis’ works.
According to Ellis (1997, p3), SLA can be defined as “the way in which people
learn a language other their mother tongue, inside or outside of a classroom”. This
means that SLA process can occur in various contexts such as in classrooms, in
native or non- native target language environment. Ellis also demontrated two
main goals of SLA in his research. One of the goals is description of L2
acquisition, which means how language acquisition proceeds. Another goal is the
explanation of SLA process, which involves identifying the external and internal
factors that account for why learners acquire a L2 in the way they do and why
some learners seem to be better at it than others. To give persuasive illustrations
for the above goals of SLA, Ellis presented two case studies of L2 learners: one is
of an adult learner learning English in surroundings where it serves as a means of
communication ( studied by Richard Schmidt at the University of Hawaii), and the
other of two children learning English in a classroom ( studied by Ellis). After
analysing and comparing two studies, Ellis drawed some noticeable issues related
to SLA. As regards the issues in the description of language learner, he found in
two studies that learners made errors of different kinds in their acquisition such as
grammatical errors and errors of omission and overuse ( adult learner) and
grammatical and sociolinguistic errors ( child learners). Besides, he also pointed
out that L2 learners in these studies “acquire a large number of formulaic chunks,
which they use to perform communicative functions that are important to them
and which contribute to the fluency of their unplanned speech.” Another finding is
that learners acquire the language systematically.
In conclusion, second language acquisition is a very broad field that

includes a variety of issues when L2 acquisition proceeds and it can be affected by
many factors both external and internal. Among the issues raised by Krashen and
Ellis, one of the most noticeable and common components in SLA process is
learners’ language errors. Besides, in recent years language errors are not only

9


dealt with alone, but they are also studied together with teachers’ feedback
strategies towards the errors (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Chaudron, 1988; Lyster
and Ranta (1997); Surakka (2007); Park (2010); and Nguyen (2012). Hence, the
next part of the study will discuss these two issues critically.
1.2. Language errors
1.2.1. Definitions of language errors
The definition of language errors is varied because different authors have
different ways of seeing it in the process of language learning. Hendrickson
(1978), defines error with reference to error correction and teachers: “an utterance,
form or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of
its inappropriate use or its absence in real- life discourse” (p. 387). It can be seen
that this definition is highly subjective because the teacher is the only one who
decides whether the language students create is right or wrong. However, each
teacher with different views and in different contexts is likely to have various
decisions about the unacceptability of students’ performance. Another definition
of error provided by James (1998, p. 1) considers error “an unsuccessful bit of
language”. This definition is, nevertheless, too broad and not sufficient in
language teaching and learning fields.
In addition to defining error, many linguists find it necessary to make a
clear distinction between “mistake” and “error” in language. Brown (1994, p.205)
quoted by Ancker (2000, p.21), claim: “a mistake is a performance error that is
either a random guess or a slip; it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly.

An error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker,
reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner”.
Edge (1989, p.37) suggests dividing mistakes into three categories: slips,
errors and attempts. “Slips” are mistakes that students can correct themselves;
“errors” are mistakes which students cannot correct themselves; “attempts” are
student’s intentions of using the language without knowing the right way.
However, it is felt that the two terms “mistake” and “error” are used
interchangeably by many teachers in their real teaching.

10


According to Snow (1977), the distintion between errors and mistakes
depends on whether a second language (L2) learner knows that he/ she does
something wrong and can fix it or not. He points out that there are three stages
that L2 learners have to experience in language learning. The first stage is when
the learner does something wrong without knowing it; in the second stage, he may
know he is doing it wrong but does not know how to put it right; and the last stage
is when he can correct his wrong version. For him, errors occur in the first two
stages while mistakes belong to the last stage. Partly sharing the views with Snow,
Shastri (2010) points out, it is crucial to stress that an error is not corrigible by the
learner him/herself and suggested certain lack of linguistic competence.
In conclusion, there are many ways of defining an error. Each way has its
own reasonable aspects and certain contributions to language teaching and
learning. However, this study takes the definition of Snow (1977) as the basis to
define “a speaking error” in the next part because it helps make clear about error
in second language learning process and it is aslo suitable for the research
purposes.
1.2.2. The role of errors in SLA
Language learning, like any kind of human learning, involves committing

errors. In the process of learning, the learner of English as a second language
may be unaware of the existence of the particular system or rule in English
language. In the past, language teachers considered errors committed by their
students as something undesirable which they diligently sought to prevent from
occurring. During the past fifteen years, however, researchers in the field of
applied linguistics came to view errors as evidence for a creative process in
language learning in which learners employ hypothesis testing and various
strategies in learning a second language. Far from being a nuisance to be
eradicated, errors are, as Selinker (1969) indicates, significant in three respects:
(1) errors are important for the language teacher because they indicate the
learner's progress in language learning; (2) errors are also important for the
language researcher as they provide insights into how language is learnt; and (3)
finally, errors are significant to the language learner himself/herself as he/she gets

11


involved in hypothesis testing. Therefore, it can be felt that error shows its
positive effects on many aspects such as teaching, researching and learning.
In addition, recently, many studies of second language acquisition have
tended to focus on learners' errors since they allow for prediction of the
difficulties involved in acquiring a second language. In this way, teachers can be
made aware of the difficult areas to be encountered by their students and devote
special care and emphasis to them. Richards et al (1992) mention the study of
errors are used in order to (1) identify strategies which learners use in
language teaching, (2) identify the causes of learners’ errors, and finally (3) obtain
information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid to teaching or
in development of teaching materials( cited in Khansir 2008). Analysis of second
language learner’s errors can help identify learner’s linguistic difficulties and
needs at a particular stage of language learning.

To support the important role of errors in second language acquisition
process more clearly, Spratt et al (2010, p. 143) highly value errors because they
are clear- cut signs of the fact that “learning is taking place and that learners are
taking risks with the language”. With this view, it can be understood that errors
are not considered the failure of learning process but the experiment with
language. To put it differently, if students only produce language correctly or
imitate exactly what they have been taught by teachers previously, the second
language acquisition process seems to be meaningless. There will be also no
progress made unless students are allowed to create their own new products in
language. Errors, hence, can be seen as the useful indicators of learners’
advacement in learning.
From the above-mentioned roles of errors in second language acquisition, it
is advisable that students be given the chances to make guesses and experiment
their language learned. In order to provide students with space for creativeness,
teachers are recommended to follow what Bartram and Walton (1991) claim that
students “have to have the opportunity to make [errors]” (p. 14). Moreover, it is
also necessary that teachers help students understand that errors are a natural part
of language learning process and they are encouraged to create with their

12


language. To do so, Bartram and Walton (1991) suggest that it might be useful for
teachers to praise the good, successful tries, rather than criticise errors. Once
teachers can supply students with sufficient freedom and encouragement to try
new pieces of language, both teaching and learning processes can make use of the
potential and wonderful benefits from errors.
1.2.3. Classification of errors
Researchers have categorized errors in various ways. Burt (1975) classifies
errors into two categories: global errors and local errors. Global errors refer to

errors that significantly hinder communication and “those that affect overall
sentence organization, such as wrong word order, missing, wrong, or misplaced
sentence connectors” (p. 56). For example: the wrong use of the conjuntion
“because” in the sentence It is raining because I stay at home instead of the
conjunction “so” can lead to the misunderstanding of the meaning of the sentence.
On the other hand, “local errors affect single elements in a sentence but do not
usually hinder communication significantly such as errors in noun and verb
inflections, articles, and auxiliaries” (p.57). For instance, many learners misuse
the past form of be “was” with the subject “you”. Burt also points out that
correction of one global error clarifies the intended message more than the
correction of several local errors. Furthermore, Burt argues that high-frequency
errors should be the first errors teachers should correct.
Another general classification of errors comes from Corder (1981), who
distinguishes between overt and covert error. According to him, a covert error
occurs when a learner’s utterance is superficially correct, but is nevertheless
erroneous. This case is clearly explained by Bartram and Walton (1991) that it
happens when learners say “something right by accident” (p. 21). In contrast, an
overt error appears in cases of superficially ill-formed utterances and when an
utterance is clearly erroneous. Although this distinction between the two kinds of
errors deals with correctness and erroneousness, they are both serious if they
cause failure in communication.
Edge (1989: 11) lists three categories of errors from linguistic aspect:
phonological, grammatical and lexical. This way of classification is also partly

13


shared by Choděra (2006) when he considers linguistic competence in second
language.
Considering how errors differ from the L2 structures, Dulay, Burt and

Krashen (1982) classify errors into five types : omission (where some element is
omitted that should actually be present) , addition (where some element is present
though it should not be there) , misordering (where the items presented are
selected correctly, but placed in a wrong order), misformation (where a wrong
form was selected in place of the right one), and blends (where two alternative
grammatical forms are combined to produce an ungrammatical one). Although
this type of classification is considered easy to recognized by teachers (James,
1998), it shows the high risk of being too superficial and general.
It can be shown that there is no absolute agreement on the classifications of
errors. The classifications range from the general level (global or local errors), the
errorness level, and linguistic level to the surface surface-structure level (such as
errors of omission, addition, etc.). Each model of classification complement on
each other and helps to show broad views on the various types of errors which
language learners can possibly make. However, in this study the classification of
errors by Edge would be used as one of bases for classifying speaking errors in the
next part.
1.3. Overview of feedback strategies
1.3.1. Definition of feedback
Researchers have used various operationalized definitions of feedback, and
they use different terms to refer to the similar practices such as error correction,
error treatment, corrective feedback and feedback. Among these, feedback is
considered the most general term because it implies the whole process of all other
terms. Schegloff et al. (1977) define the term correction as “the replacement of
error or mistake by what is correct” (p. 363). Chaudron (1977) defines correction
as “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to
or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p.31), which is the most
common conception employed by researchers. These two definitions of correction

14

show that correction is just a part in teachers’ reaction to what students produce,
which will be discussed as feedback in the following views.
Lalande (1982) terms ‘feedback’ as any kinds of procedure used to inform
whether a learner’s response is correct or wrong. Sharing the same stance,
Lightbown and Spada (1999) define corrective feedback as “any indication to the
learners that their use of the target language is incorrect” (p.171). However, these
two general definitions seem to lack teacher’s activity in the teaching process. It is
because if teachers only inform learners about their errors, the feedback process
will be considered insufficient. The above definitions of feedback can be
supported by Wajnryb’s views (1992) when he recognises ‘feedback’ more
specifically as the teacher’s responses given to what learners produce in the
classroom. Corrective feedback includes both explicit and implicit feedback.
Teachers can provide corrective feedback either without interrupting the flow of
conversation (implicit feedback) or overtly with an emphasis on the ill-formed
utterance (explicit feedback).
To make the term feedback more comprehensible, Ellis (2009)
distinguishes between positive and negative feedback on the most general level.
He states:
“Positive feedback affirms that a learner response to an activity is correct.
It may signal the veracity of the content of a learner utterance or the linguistic
correctness of the utterance. In pedagogical theory positive feedback is viewed as
important because it provides affective support to the learner and fosters
motivation to continue learning.” (p. 3)
As for negative feedback, he shows that it has been paid a lot of attention
by language teachers and L2 theorists because it is very necessary in second
language learning and teaching. He claims that negative feedback signals that the
learner’s utterance is linguistically deviant or lacks enough veracity. To illustrate,
Ellis takes error correction as a type of negative feedback because it “takes the
form of a response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error”. (p. 3)

15