Quan niệm của giáo viên về việc sửa lỗi nói cho học sinh và thực tế sửa lỗi trên lớp

1 Chapter I: Introduction 1. Rationale of the Study Recently, research interest in the teachers’ implicit theories that underlie their classroom behaviors has been increasing. It is commonly agreed that each teacher possesses a variety of personal knowledge about pedagogical issues including beliefs about how to plan the lesson, how to teach, how to correct learners’ errors, ect. Continuous research on this area has showed that what the teachers do in the classroom is governed by what they believe and these beliefs often serve as a filter through which instructional judgments and decisions are made (Shavelson and Stern, 1981). Thus, attention to teachers’ beliefs can inform educational practices in the ways that prevailing research has not and is essential to improving their professional preparation and teaching practices (Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992) also affirms that the study of beliefs is critical to educational practices. She argues that beliefs may be "the clearest measure of a teacher’s professional growth" (p.54) and that understanding them is "instrumental in determining the quality of interaction one finds among teachers in a given school" (p.85). Rokeach (1968) concludes that beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions made by individuals in the course of their lifetime. Within TESOL, there has been growing realization of a need to understand, and account for the underlying belief systems of language teachers and the impact these have on their classroom practices (Farrell, 2005). However, in Vietnam to our knowledge there is relatively little research in teacher beliefs and classroom practices. This gave me the desire to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding oral error correction, which has been a focus of pedagogical strategies since the late 1960s when the trend away from the audiolingualism has contributed to a renewed interest in the use of language as communication. 2. Statement of the Problem Oral error correction is a complex issue, and the teacher seems to correct oral errors intuitively. However, much of the research on teachers’ beliefs has so far focused on the 2 areas of science, math education or on reading while oral error correction has been poorly explored. This study is, therefore, an attempt to tap into this important and complex problem. 3. Aims of the Study The purpose of the study is to find out the beliefs and classroom practices of an experienced teacher regarding oral error correction in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang Province. The area where there is a discrepancy or consistency between teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices and the factors that may influence the teacher actual classroom practices were also be further investigated in this study. 4. Research Questions - What are the teacher’s beliefs about oral error correction? - To what extent do her approaches to oral error correction reflect her stated beliefs? 4. Research Method The study employed the qualitative single case study approach to explore the teacher beliefs and classroom practices regarding oral error correction. The data was collected through interviews and classroom observations. The data collected was then analyzed to gain the insights and implications of the study. 5. Scope of the Study A study on teacher beliefs of oral error correction and classroom practices is such a broad theme that cannot be wholly discussed within the frame work of this paper. Thus, in this minor thesis an attempt to only one specific and commonly practiced aspect to oral error correction will discussed: beliefs of the way of oral error correction and actual classroom practices of an experienced English language teacher in 11 th form class in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province and the factors that may affect the teacher in her classroom practices. 3 6. Significance of the Study Ways of oral error correction and the relationship of these with classroom practices have often been neglected by teachers so far, the answer to the research questions hopes to provide insights into both what teacher believed and actually did in the classroom, teachers then can be aware of the importance of accessing teachers' beliefs and comparing these beliefs with actual classroom practices “when teachers become more aware of how they teach and how their students learn, then the whole educational process becomes more enjoyable and meaningful for the stakeholders: teachers and students”( Miler , 2004). It is also hoped that this study can act as a catalyst in enabling other teachers to reflect on and examine their own beliefs about their ways of oral error correction. 7. Definition of Terminologies. Teachers’ Beliefs Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to reality. Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held. (Adapted from Murphy, 1998) The reason for choosing this definition of teacher beliefs will be presented in the literature review of the study The Notion of Errors The notion of errors is complicated by its nature. Different researchers may have different concepts of errors. It depends upon different considerations or in other words it depends on how language is approached. Corder (1975) states “ if language as a code, a set of rules for generating syntactically, phonologically and semantically well-formed sentences , then a breach of the code, i.e. a use of wrong rules or misuse of the right rules may , but not necessarily, result in superficially ill-formed sentences”.(p.123) 4 In this sense, language is formally approached: a superficially ill-formed sentence is no doubt erroneous. However, it is unnecessary for any superficially well-formed sentence to come up as non-erroneous. If in a situation where communication is preferred the criterion should be what impedes communication, and it is known that there are many sentences that are ill-formed but understandable to hearers or readers. In informal settings, it is commonly believed that performance of native speakers is often taken as the norm for correcting people errors. However, it is not always reliable because native speakers speak variety of dialects. Take the example preferred by many linguists “ who is your name” for illustration , the sentence is considered as an error in British English but a good sentence in Maori English. So, “what is error” is a question that can not be answered without taking into account some factors such as the standard of performance or the norms being aimed at, the knowledge of the learners, the context, the notion of “acceptability” and even the realistic assessment ( Mc Kating 1981) In short, it is clear from these arguments that there is not always an agreement among linguists and researchers on what is an error. This research studies the errors committed by learners of English in the context of Vietnam where English is taught and learnt as a foreign language. Thus, the norms on which error determination depends should be understood as undisputedly the prescriptive English standard usage. There, of course, exist in English a variety of dialects but its speakers recognize one of which as standard. That is to say in this study any deviated sides of learner speech and writing that cannot account for the English model of usage assumed by educated users should be considered erroneous, or unacceptable. So the following contentions, which were adapted from Dulay et al. (1982), will be the starting point in this thesis. Errors are understood as the flawed side of learner speech and writing, those parts of conversation or composition that deviate from English model of usage assumed by educated users. Error verse Mistake There exists in language teaching and learning a distinction between the term an error and a mistake though linguists found it impossible to indicate any sharp differentiation. The distinction resulted from the term “competence errors” and 5 “performance error”, to use Chomsky’s (1965) terms, in which the former is derived from incomplete knowledge or inadequate competence of the target language, the later is caused by some aspects of verbal performance such as lack of attention, fatigue or careless. That point of view is later supported by Corder (ibid.) when he makes a distinction between systematic errors i.e. those caused by the formulation of incorrect hypothesis about the target language and non-systematic error i.e. those caused by “memory lapses, physical states, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion”. However, Duskova (1969) with her investigation of errors made by Czech learners of English in an attempt to look for a reasonable answer discovered that the above –mentioned principle of distinction was not reliable. She found that many recurrent systematic errors: failure to express genitive relation or confusion of the passive of an active voice, ect reflected no defects in knowledge at all. The explanation provided for these cases was the lack of autonomy in rule application. Kielhofer cited in Schachter (1974) also supported this point of view by stating that a large number of errors of performance might indicate the lack of habit in using language skill, therefore lack of L2 competence of learners. McKating, by giving one example of student getting things right in one paragraph but wrong in context , implies that not all so –called “ careless” mistakes are caused by carelessness. The learner may be unsure of the choice, so he just tries out the rules and hopes to be right some of the time. He shows that the possibility to self correction will not always work in distinguishing errors and mistakes. He shows cases where a student knows that one of two forms is correct but uncertain which. When the teacher tells him that he has made an error in the first place, he knows the other must be the right one and he corrects the wrong one. It is not a proof that this error is really a lapse. In addition, Corder (opcit.) though admits that the distinction between error and mistake is by no mean easy, he claims that “mistakes are of no significance to the process of language learning” even native speakers commit them as slip of the tongue or the pen. While Johnson (1988 cited in Ha 2005) argues that if the word “mistake” is used to describe the malformation due to processing inability under difficult operating condition, then it may be true that a good percentage of our students’ malformations are mistakes and 6 not errors. In this case mistake correction becomes important in language teaching. It is opposed to Corder’s idea that mistakes have no significance. It is clear from these arguments that there is little agreement among linguists and researchers on the distinction between these two terms which is by no mean clear cut. Therefore, in this study I am in the support of Dulay et all (1982) on the point that. In order to facilitate reference to deviations that have not yet been classified as performance or competence errors, we do not restrict the term “error” to competence-based deviations. We use “error” to refer to any deviation from a selected norm of language performance, no matter what the characteristics or causes of the deviation might be. It therefore in this study the terms error and mistake can be used interchangeably. 7 Chapter II: Literature Review The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs of an experienced teacher in an Upper Secondary school regarding beliefs about oral error correction and her actual classroom practices. No studies were found by this review on this topic specifically. This review will, therefore, begin by describing some perspectives on and techniques in oral error correction. In the following paragraphs of this chapter, we will describe the nature of beliefs and building a definition which will be used in the context of this study and finally some previous studies about the teacher beliefs and classroom practices which is the focus in this study will be briefly presented. 1. Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning. Over the past fifty years, there has been a dramatic shift in the perception and correction of learner errors in second and foreign language acquisition. Throughout the 1950s and the mid-1960s, when the audio-lingual approach to teaching foreign languages was in full swing, learner errors were something to avoid. In his book, Language and Language Learning, Nelson Brooks (1960 cited in Ha 2005) stated, “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is expected” (p. 56). In this period, an example of the specific guidelines for error correction appears in The Teachers’ Manual for German, Level One, prepared by the Modern Language Materials Development Center (1961), which states that teachers should correct all errors immediately and that the students should be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own mistakes. Beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, however, studies in Transformational-generative grammar, first-language acquisition, and cognitive psychology have contributed to a trend away from audiolingualism (Shultz, 1996). In this new paradigm of language teaching, instead of expecting students to produce error -free sentences, students were encouraged to communicate in the target language. Furthermore, producing errors came to be viewed as a natural and useful part of second-language acquisition (Corder, 1973; Lange, 1977 cited in Ha, 2005), which could provide language teachers with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching. As second-language errors 8 began to be perceived as a natural process of acquisition, teachers were consequently discouraged from explicitly treating learner errors. Communicative approaches downplayed the role of explicit error correction (Schultz, 1996). However, based on increasing evidence that corrective feedback can indeed facilitate L2 acquisition ( Ellis 1989; Long 1983, among many), a growing number of researchers point out the detrimental effect of “the lack of consistent and unambiguous feedback” (Allen et. al. 1990, p. 67) and call for a reevaluation of the negative view on error correction arguing that error correction provides learners with negative input which might be essential for mastery of a second language. To summarize, there are two different schools of thoughts about learner errors : one sees errors as a sin and need to be avoided and the other sees error as the essentiality in mastering a language. Accordingly, there are different views toward error correction. Some believe that error correction does improve the proficiency of language learner, especially in case of errors which inhibit communication and appear frequently. Other argues that error correction is not so important and expresses doubts about the effectiveness of error correction. Their argument is that learners’ error are simply indicative of a certain stage of development which will develop naturally into more accurate and appropriate forms (Makino 1993 cited in Ha, 2005) 2. Techniques in Oral Error Correction. Decisions about treatment of error will depend upon the stage of the lesson, the activity, the type of mistake made, and the particular student who is making that mistake (Harmer, 2001). A distinction is often made between accuracy and fluency. We need to decide whether a particular activity in the classroom is designed to expect the students’ complete accuracy as in the study of a piece of grammar, a pronunciation exercise, or some vocabulary work for example - or whether we are asking the students to use the language as fluently as possible. We need to make a clear difference between ‘non- communicative’ and ‘communicative’ activities whereas the former are generally intended to ensure correctness; the latter are designed to improve language fluency (Harmer, 2001). The received view has been that when students are involved in accuracy work, it is part of the teacher’s function to point out and correct the mistakes the students are making. That is 9 a stage where the teacher stops the activity to make the correction. During communicative activities, however, it is generally felt that teachers should not interrupt students in mid- flow to point out a grammatical, lexical, or pronunciation errors, since to do so interrupts the communication and correspondence an activity back to the study of language form or precise meaning. Indeed, according to one view of teaching and learning, speaking activities in the classroom act as a switch to help learners transfer ‘learnt’ language to the ‘acquired’ store (Ellis 1982) or a trigger, forcing students to think carefully about how best to express the meanings they wish to convey (Swain 1985: 249). Part of the value of such activities lies in the various attempts that students have to make to get their meanings across; processing language for communication is, in this view, the best way of processing language for acquisition. Teacher intervention in such circumstances can raise stress levels and stop the acquisition process in its tracks (Harmer, 2001). Therefore error correction during accuracy work should be clearly different from error correction during fluency work. The following techniques for error correction during accuracy and fluency are suggested by Harmer ( 2001) 2.1 Correction during Accuracy Work Correction is usually made up of two distinct stages. In the first, teachers show students that a mistake has been made, and in the second, if necessary, they help the students to do something about it. The first set of techniques we need to be aware of, then, is devoted to showing incorrectness. These techniques are only really beneficial for what we are assuming to be language slips rather than embedded errors. The students are being expected to be able to correct themselves once the problem has been pointed out. If they cannot do this, however, we need to move on to alternative techniques. 2.1.1. Showing incorrectness: this can be done in a number of different ways. Repeating: Here we can ask the student to repeat what they have said, perhaps by saying Again? Or more polite “would you please repeat that ? ” or another alternative “what” which coupled with intonation and expression, will indicate that something is not clear. Echoing: this can be a precise way of pin-pointing an error. We repeat what the student has said emphasizing the part of the utterance that was wrong, 10 e.g: *Flight 309 GO to Paris? (said with a questioning intonation). It is an extremely efficient way of showing incorrectness during accuracy work. Statement and question: we can, of course, simply say That’s not quite right, or Dopeople think that’s correct? to indicate that something has not quite worked. Expression: when we know our classes well, a simple facial expression or a gesture may be enough to indicate that something does not quite work. This needs to be done with care as the wrong expression or gesture can, in some circumstances, appear to be mocking or cruel. Finger-counting can be used whenever something is missing , whether it is a sound, a syllable in a word, or a word in sentence. Edge suggests that fingers should be counted from right to left so that it looks like left to right to from the students’ point of view, easing their recognition of the mistake. Furthermore, following a recent trend that laces greater emphasis on suprasegmentals, gestures can be used for correcting mistakes with stress and intonation( edge). Teachers can tap fingers on a desk to show stress in a word or in a sentence. Nodding heads or clapping out the rhythm of a word or a sentence to indicate proper stress may also prove very helpful. Schachter introduces six hand signals for use with high-intermediate level learners: - The first, a sports time-out signal, indicates an error of tense, aspect, or voice - the second, a triangle made with the forefingers and middle fingers of both hands shows an agreement error. - the third, two fingers as in the “ peace” or “ victory” sign, show an error in pluralization. - the fourth, a letter P with one hand making the stem while the other hand makes the circle at the top, signals a preposition use error. ( from the teacher’s point of view, the P will be reversed) [...]... rationale for choosing the methodology as well as the specifics about the methodology that was employed 2.1 Rationale for Choosing a Qualitative Case Study 2.1.1 Quantitative vs Qualitative Methodology and Rationale for Choosing Qualitative Research In determining the appropriate methodology to use in this research, the first question that had to be answered was “ is this research qualitative or quantitative... the school are not major in English Most of them start studying English at 10th form however there are still few who have four years studying English at secondary school In general, students’ knowledge of English is not good and they are also not very positive toward learning English as I have been teaching English in the school for several years and I looked at their score at the end of the school... Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province Most of the teachers in school are novice thus they have not got much experience in teaching but they are very enthusiastic and creative The teacher in this study is Ms Nguy n th Hà (pseudo-name) She is 35 with 9 years teaching experience She is considered to be the only and the most experienced teacher in English group in the Upper Secondary School She has... ng Anh 10” was introduced in 2006, and then the “New Ti ng Anh 11”, “ New Ti ng Anh 12” is introducing in the following school years 2 Method of the Study This part describes the research method used to explore the beliefs and classroom practices of a teacher in an Upper Secondary School regarding oral error correction The methodology used is one geared toward the research questions in an attempt to... nearly all students were born in farmer families whose living standards are not high Beside going to school, they have to help parents to work This may affect students’ learning as well as their attitude toward English learning , the language of the people too far away from them In addition, the school is located in a rural area where people’s living standards as well as their awareness are generally... 2001) table, (see table 1) as a foundation making this determination, there are five general questions that can be used to determine if the research is quantitative or qualitative in nature 24 Table1: Selection of Methodological Approach Question Quantitative Qualitative What is the purpose of To explain and predict To describe and explain the research? To confirm and validate To explore and interpret... purpose of the research Quantitative research attempts to explain what is happening and to predict future events based upon testing theory The qualitative researcher, instead, attempts to build theory through the exploration and interpretation of the data By exploring and interpreting the relationship between the beliefs and classroom practices of a teacher in an upper secondary school, this study was... can learn something new in this way when they are making an attempt at some language they are not quite sure of We can use a number of other accuracy techniques of showing incorrectness too, such as echoing and expression, or even say You shouldn’t say X, say Y, etc But because we do it gently and because we do not move on to a ‘getting it right’ stage - our intervention is less disruptive than a more... explains, to the fact that belief does not lend itself easily to investigation and is difficult to define In the same vein, Pintrich (1990) states while beliefs have been described as the most valuable psychological construct to teacher education they are also one of the more difficult to define More specifically, Pajares argues that "the difficulty on studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional... qualitative case study approach to investigate the relationship between beliefs and actual classroom practices 19 with regards to grammar teaching of two experienced teachers of English language in a primary school in Singapore Data collection of the study occurred over a period of two months Sources of data included one scheduled pre-study interview with each of the two teachers, two non-participatory observations . determining the quality of interaction one finds among teachers in a given school" (p.85). Rokeach (1968) concludes that beliefs are the best indicators. experienced teacher regarding oral error correction in an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang Province. The area where there is a discrepancy or consistency