Output file 1 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES o0o PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG TEACHERS'''' CORRECTION OF WRITTEN ERRORS AND S[.]
1 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES - o0o - PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG TEACHERS' CORRECTIONOFWRITTENERRORS ANDSTUDENTS' UPTAKE ( Cách chữa lỗi viết giáo viên tiếp nhận học sinh ) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410 HA NOI, AUGUST 2010 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES - o0o - PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG TEACHERS' CORRECTIONOFWRITTENERRORS ANDSTUDENTS' UPTAKE ( Cách chữa lỗi viết giáo viên tiếp nhận học sinh ) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS METHODOLOGY CODE: 601410 SUPERVISOR: CAO THỊ PHƯƠNG HA NOI, AUGUST 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of contents iv List of abbreviation vii Part 1: Introduction Rationale Aims of the study Scopes of the study Method of the study Design of the study Part 2: Content Chapter 1: Literature Review 1.1 Errors in language learning process 1.1.1 Definition of errors 1.1.2 Errors and mistakes 1.1.3 Error Analysis in second language acquisition 1.2 Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning 1.2.1 Definition of feedback 1.2.2 Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning 1.3 Written Error Correction Strategies 1.3.1 Direct corrective feedback 1.3.2 Indirect corrective feedback 10 1.3.3 Metalinguistic corrective feedback 11 1.3.4 Focus of the feedback 12 1.3.5 Reformulation 12 1.4 Effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies 12 1.5 Error Correction and Learners‘ Uptake 13 Chapter 2: The Study 2.1 Research questions 15 2.2 The setting of the study 15 2.3 Informants 15 2.4 Instrumentation 16 2.5 Procedures 2.5.1 Data collection 16 2.5.1.1 Task 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied) 17 2.5.1.2 Task 2: (Indirect corrective feedback applied) 17 2.5.1.3 Task 3: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied) 18 2.5.2 Techniques of analysis 18 2.5.3 Presentation of results 19 2.6 Discussion of results 21 2.7 Data analysis 25 2.8 Learner Responses to Feedback: Uptake and Repair 30 Chapter 3: Implications and Suggestions for written error correction 3.1 General Implications 34 3.2 Suggestions for written error corrections 35 Part 3: Conclusion 3.1 Conclusion 39 3.2 Limitations and suggestions for further research 40 References 41 Appendices I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ART ARTICLE A.G AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND VERB CA CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS CF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK EA ERROR ANALYSIS ESL ENGLISH SECOND LANGUAGE L1 FIRST LANGUAGE L2 SECOND LANGUAGE PREP PREPOSITION 10 PS PAST SIMPLE TENSE 11 SVA SUBJECT VERB AGREEMENT 12 WF WORD FORM 13 WO WORD ORDER 10 PART I: INTRODUCTION Rationale English serves as a major language for international communication and people all over the world are making increasing use of English as their ―second language‖ Writing is one of four skills in language learning process and it is seen as a language skill which is the most difficult and complex because it‘s required widely perception and needs good understanding on grammar and structures It is a task that no two people the same way However, there are some logical steps that every writer seems to follow in the creation of a paper In writing process that need grammatical and spelling understanding well to make the composition well and can be understood English is very complicated for Vietnamese learners, as English and Vietnamese are of two different linguistic types Besides, there are quite a lot of differences in the way of thinking, lifestyle, and literature between the two cultures These contrasts themselves have caused Vietnamese learners to meet some difficulties and commit errors while learning English Most teachers hope their feedback will not only improve their students‘ current writing, but also help their writing and language development How to deal with and when to give feed back to the errors are vital in teaching English as it may either result in motivation or discouragement in language learning There have been a number of B.A, M.A thesis making error analysis by Vietnamese ELT methodologists and applied linguists, such as Nguyen Van Loi (1999), Do Hong Yen (2002), Tran Thi Hai Binh (2005), etc, but none of them mentioned the responding of students to their teachers‘ correction It is hoped that the findings of this thesis in the area of writing and the influence of teachers‘ correction as well as students‘ uptake would be relevant to teachers as well as students at school Aims of the study This study investigates the effect of teacher corrective feedback and is aimed at making an analysis of the errors made by students of English in learning writing skill Basing on the results of the above error analysis, the researcher finally hopes: - giving a better awareness of pupils‘ errors in written English 11 - helping teachers have positive attitudes towards students‘ written errors - to find out solutions to the problems in the students‘ learning process as well as the teachers‘ teaching process so that students‘ errors in writing can be avoided Scopes of the study Due to the limited time, this research confines itself to errors in written language, which are collected from written tasks performed by second language high school students Method of the study: This is a quantitative research using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for the analysis and statistical counting as measurement of results Design of the study: For achieving the aims stated above, the research starts with an introduction giving an overview of what is researched, why and how it can be done Followed are three chapters presenting the main part of the research In chapter one, literature related to the study is reviewed It is divided into main sections Section introduces some Errors in language learning process The notion of errors is discussed in the opinions of Corder, Duskova, and Richards Section summarizes Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning In section 3, the researcher provides some Written Error Correction Strategies, which are suggested by the former Section and section mention the effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies and how learners uptake Chapter two is composed of two parts: research design and discussion of results In the first part, the research method is clearly described with specific procedures in collecting and analyzing data The statistical results are shown up to determine the most effective corrective feedback among those applied in the research Chapter is finished with some implication and suggestions to elimination and prevention of errors Finally, the study closes with a conclusion, which gives a summary of the whole study problem, and provides suggestions for further study 12 PART II: CONTENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Errors in language learning process 1.1.1 Definition of errors According to Corder (1975:112), an error is referred to as a linguistic form which is either superficially deviant or inappropriate in terms of the target language Besides, James (1998: 1) provisionally defines a language error as an unsuccessful bit of language In an article about some problems of definition, identification, and distinction, Lennon (1991: 181), from the university of Kassel, suggested that notwithstanding native speaker intuitions, errors not constitute as easily recognizable a feature in production as might be imagined It can be therefore, said that it is not easy to define what can be considered to be errors in terms of linguistics In order to limit the scope of the research and to have a clear, consistent set of corpus as the subject of the research, the researcher would like to propose this working definition: The language usages which are, to some extent, contrary to the general rules or styles in English, or any deviated forms or structures that cannot account for the English model of usage assumed by educated users are considered erroneous, ungrammatically or unacceptable, thus being regarded as errors 1.1.2 Errors and mistakes A distinction is sometimes made between an error, which results from incomplete knowledge, and a mistake made by a learner when writing or speaking and which is caused by lack of attention, fatigue, carelessness, or some other aspects of performance Mistakes are of no significance to the process of language learning However, the problem of determining what is a learner‘s mistake and what a learner‘s error is one of some difficulty and involves a much more sophisticated study and analysis of errors than is usually accorded them Corder (1967: 59) made a distinction between a mistake and an error Whereas a mistake is a random performance slip caused by fatigue, excitement, etc, and therefore can be 13 readily self-corrected, an error is a systematic deviation made by learners who have not yet mastered the rules of the second language A learner cannot self-correct an error because it is a reflective product of his or her current stage of second language development or underlying competence In other words, he associates errors with failures in competence and mistakes with failures in performance 1.1.3 Error Analysis in second language acquisition Errors are now viewed as natural and important part of learning process because they can yield information about language This positive attitude towards errors is especially important in the wake of the Communicative Language Learning and Teaching Many researchers on errors in second language learning have been done by several scholars like Corder (1967), Richard (1992), and Spelunker (1992) Error Analysis is the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign language learners Error Analysis may be carried out in order to: - identify strategies which learners use in language learning - identify the causes of learners‘ errors - obtain information on common difficulties in language learning, as an aid to teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials Error Analysis developed as a branch of applied linguistics in the 1960s, and set out to demonstrate that many learners‘ errors were not due to the learners‘ mother tongue but reflected universal learning strategies Error Analysis was therefore offered as an alternative to contrastive analysis Attempts were made to develop classifications for different types of errors on the basis of the different processes that were assumed to account for them A basis distinction was drawn between intralingual and Interlingual errors An Intralingual error is one which results from faulty or partial learning of the Target language, rather than from language transfer Intralingual error may be caused by the influence of one target language item upon another For example, a learner may produce He is comes, based on a blend of the English structures He is coming, He comes Intralingual errors can be classified as follows: 15 By classifying errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the second language acquisition process by inferring the strategies that the learners were adopting For learners themselves, errors are ―indispensable‖ since the making of errors can be regarded as a device the learners use in order to learn ( Selinker, 1992: 150 ) 1.2 Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning 1.2.1 Definition of feedback Feedback is a fundamental element of a process to writing It can be defined as input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision Through feedback, the writer learns where he or she has misled or confused the reader by not supplying enough information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something like inappropriate word-choice or tense The crucial point is that the teacher‘s role in student writing is not the last event in the process Feedback must be interactive to be genuinely effective, and this requires us to find ways of correcting papers which both encourage students to think about what they have done and lead them to improve on it Corrective feedback (CF) is an area that bridges the concerns of teachers and SLA researchers Teachers are concerned with whether or not to correct learners‘ errors, and when and how to it SLA researchers are concerned with whether corrective feedback has any effect on learners‘ interlanguage development and what type of CF is most effective According to Ur (1996), corrective feedback is allocated a very different role in different methods Audiolingualism: ‗negative assessment is to be avoided as far as possible since it functions as ‗punishment‘ and may inhibit or discourage learning‘ Humanistic methods: ‗assessment should be positive or non-judgemental‘ in order to ‗promote a positive self-image of the learner as a person and language learner‘ Skill theory: ‗the learner needs feedback on how well he or she is doing‘ 16 1.2.2 Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning Error correction in L2 writing is a source of great concern to writing instructors and of controversy to researchers and composition theorists Over the past twenty years, approaches to responding to students‘ grammar problems have included ―opposing extremes of obsessive attention to every single student error and beginning neglect of linguistic accuracy‖ (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998, p 198) Real-life teachers, however, have always known that students‘ errors are troublesome, that students themselves are very concerned about accuracy, and that responding effectively to students‘ grammatical and lexical problems is a challenging endeavor fraught with uncertainty about its long-term effectiveness Teachers of L2 composition who regularly provide grammar oriented feedback would doubtless report that this is one of the most time-consuming and exhausting aspects of their jobs Because of the perceived importance of error correction and the amount of emphasis both teachers and students place on it, it is reasonable to ask whether grammatical correction is effective and appropriate at all, and if so, what the best ways are to approach it Truscott‘s thesis and major points (1996: 328-329) are stated clearly: Grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned The reasons are: firstly, research evidence shows that grammar correction is ineffective; secondly, this lack of effectiveness is what should be expected, given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning; thirdly, grammar correction has significant harmful effects Finally, the various arguments offered for continuing it all lack merit He concludes that not only is grammar correction ineffective, it is actually harmful to students (and teachers) He claims that correction causes stress and demotivate students and it takes up too much teacher and student time which could be more productively and pleasantly spent on other aspects of writing There is tremendous variability in students‘ ability to benefit from grammar instruction and feedback and to learn to self-correct, and many students have made dramatic improvements in their accuracy over the course of a semester ( Ferris, 1995a) It is vitally 17 important for teachers to commit themselves to selective error feedback and to a strategy for building students‘ awareness and knowledge of their most serious and frequent grammar problems Careful prioritizing increases teachers‘ chances of being accurate and thorough in their feedback (because they are focusing on only a few problems at a time) As noted by Ferris & Hedgcock (1998: 202), efforts to find answers to the question ―Does error correction work?‘ must consider three crucial factors: (1) Is grammar feedback and instruction carried out selectively, systematically, and accurately? (2) Are individual student differences (including language proficiency, learning styles, motivation and attitude, first language, etc.) adequately considered and accounted for? and (3) Are studies which assess the effectiveness of error correction designed and executed appropriately? Specific questions for further research might include (but are certainly not limited to) the following: Do teachers respond accurately to students‘ errors? Does training and practice help them to so more effectively? Are students more able to make progress in monitoring for certain types of errors than others (e.g., morphological or syntactic errors versus lexical errors)? Which individual student variables affect learners‘ willingness and ability to benefit from error correction, and can student problems be mitigated by thoughtful pedagogical practices? Which methods, techniques, or approaches to error correction lead to short or longterm student improvement (assuming that student, teacher, and contextual variables are adequately controlled for)? Teachers keep their own experiences and intuitions in mind, listen to our students, and consider their needs in deciding if, when, and how to provide error feedback and correction to L2 student writers As teachers, we can only hope that we will continue to find answers and discover ways to respond more thoughtfully and effectively to our student writers‘ needs 1.3 Written Error Correction Strategies How teachers correct second language (L2) students‘ writing is a topic that has attracted enormous interest from researchers and teachers alike However, as a recent review of feedback on L2 students‘ writing (Hyland & Hyland 2006) makes clear, despite all the research there are still no clear answers to the questions researchers have addressed Hyland 18 and Hyland observed: while feedback is a central aspect of L2 writing programs across the world, the research literature has not been equivocally positive about its role in L2 development, and teachers often have a sense they are not making use of its full potential A basic distinction needs to be made between the options involved in (1) the teacher‘s provision of CF and (2) the students‘ response to this feedback Clearly, CF can only have an impact if students attend to it Thus, any account of CF must consider both aspects Two dimensions of corrective feedback: Strategies for providing corrective feedback How students respond to the feedback From these aspects above, researchers have given out Strategies for Corrective Feedback : Direct Indirect Metalinguistic Focus of the feedback Reformulation 1.3.1 Direct corrective feedback With this strategy, the teacher provides the student with the correct form As Ferris (2006) notes, this can take a number of different forms – crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form above or near to the erroneous form An example: A a a the the dog stole bone from butcher He escaped with having bone When a a a the dog was going through bridge over the river he found dog in the river This approach to corrective feedback has some advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed below: 19 - Advantages: + provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest direct CF is probably better than indirect CF with student writers of low levels of proficiency - Disadvantages: + it requires minimal processing on the part of the learner and thus, although it might help them to produce the correct form when they revise their writing, it may not contribute to long-term learning 1.3.2 Indirect corrective feedback This can be done by underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the students text or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error In effect, this involves deciding whether or not to show the precise location of the error The teacher will need symbols for spelling, wrong tense usage, concord, wrong word order, etc Whatever the symbols are the students should understand clearly what they mean When the teacher first uses the system of symbols, she may underlines the word in the text and put the symbol in the margin Later it will only be necessary to put the symbol in the margin for the students to identify the error An example: A dog stole X bone from X butcher He escaped with X having X X bone When the dog was going X through X X bridge he found X dog in the river X = missing word X X = wrong word This approach to corrective feedback has some advantages and disadvantages, which are discussed below: - Advantages: + caters to ‗guided learning and problem solving‘ (Lalande, 1982) and encourages students to reflect about linguistic forms + considered more likely to lead to long-term learning (Ferris and Roberts 2002) - Disadvantages: + learners cannot correct if they not know the correct form + Learners may be able to correct but will not be certain that they are correct 20 1.3.3 Metalinguistic corrective feedback This involves providing learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the errors they have made: - Using of error codes (i.e abbreviated labels for different kinds of errors placed over the location of the error in the text or in the margin) Examples: art x 3; WW A dog stole bone from butcher He escaped with having bone Prep.; art When the dog was going through bridge over the river he art found dog in the river - Metalinguistic explanations of their errors (e.g numbering errors and providing metalinguistic comments at the end of the text) Examples: (1 ) (2) (3) A dog stole bone from butcher He escaped with having bone When the dog (4) (5) (6) (7) was going through bridge over the river he found dog in river (1), (2), (5), (6) – „a‟ before the noun when a person or thing is mentioned for the first time (3), (7) - „the‟ before the noun when the person or thing has been mentioned previously (4) – you need „over‟ when you go across the surface of something; you use „though‟ when you go inside something (e.g „go through the forest‟) Robb et al (1986) suggested that the use of error codes no more effective than three other types of CF they investigated (i.e direct feedback and two kinds of indirect feedback) Besides, Ferris (2006) supposed that error codes helped students to improve their accuracy over time in only two of the four categories of error she investigated Ferris and Roberts (2001) pointed out that error codes helped students to self-edit their writing but no more so than indirect feedback Overall, then, there is very limited evidence to show that error codes help writers to achieve greater accuracy over time and it would also seem that they are no more effective than other types of CF in assisting self-editing 21 1.3.4 Focus of the feedback: Focused corrective feedback means correcting just one type of error It provides multiple corrections of the same error and is more likely to be attended to Moreover, it is more likely to develop understanding of the nature of the error Whereas, unfocused corrective feedback means correcting all or most of the errors It addresses a range of errors, so while it might not be as effective in assisting learners to acquire specific features as focused CF 1.3.5 Reformulation This involves a native-speaker rewriting the student‘s text in such a way as ‗to preserve as many of the writer‘s ideas as possible, while expressing them in his/her own words so as to make the piece sound native-like‘ (Cohen 1989: 4) The writer then revises by deciding which of the native-speaker‘s reconstructions to accept In essence, reformulation involves two options ‗direct correction‘ + ‗revision‘ but it differs from how these options are typically executed in that the whole of the student‘s text is reformulated thus laying the burden on the learner to identify the specific changes that have been made Examples: Original version: As he was jogging, his tammy was shaked Reformulation: As he was jogging, his tummy was shaking Tummy Error correction: shaking As he was jogging his tammy was shaked 1.4 Effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies An increasing number of studies have also been investigating whether certain types of corrective feedback are more likely than others to help L2 students improve the accuracy of their writing Many studies have distinguished between direct and indirect feedback strategies and investigated the extent to which they facilitate greater accuracy Direct or explicit feedback occurs when the teacher identifies an error and provides the correct form, while 22 indirect strategies refer to situations when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to diagnose and correct it Additionally, studies examining the effect of indirect feedback strategies have tended to make a further distinction between those that or not use a code Coded feedback points to the exact location of an error, and the type of error involved is indicated with a code (for example, WW means an error in the use of word order) Uncoded feedback refers to instances when the teacher underlines an error, circles an error, or places an error tally in the margin, but, in each case, leaves the student to diagnose and correct the error The studies by Lee (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) did have control groups which received no corrective feedback Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined the effects of three different feedback treatments (errors marked with codes; errors underlined but not otherwise marked or labeled; no error feedback) and found that both error feedback groups significantly outperformed the no-feedback control group, but, like Robb et al (1986), they found that there were no significant differences between the group given coded feedback and the group not given coded feedback Furthermore, it needs to be noted that Ferris and Roberts (2001) investigated text revisions rather than new pieces of writing over time Discussing the findings of the study, Ferris (2002) reported that direct error correction led to more correct revisions (88%) than indirect error feedback (77%) Over the course of the semester, however, it was noted that students who received indirect feedback reduced their error frequency ratios substantially more than those who received direct feedback Compared with this growing but far from conclusive body of research on the written feedback strategies of teachers, virtually no research has investigated the effect of other feedback strategies, such as teacher–student conferences, peer-editing sessions, and the keeping of error logs (Ferris, 2002) 1.5 Error Correction and Learners’ Uptake Learners‘ uptake is the student‘s response to the feedback Uptake refers to different types of student responses immediately following the feedback, including responses with repair of the nontarget items as well as utterances still in need of repair (Lyster & Ranta, 23 1997) An essential feature of CF is how the student responds to the corrections provided The student‘s response frequently takes the form of revision of the initial draft—an important stage in writing process Much of the research that has investigated written CF has centered on whether students are able to make use of the feedback they receive when they revise One approach has been to describe and classify the types of revisions that students make Ferris (2002), for example, identified a number of revision categories in the redrafts of 146 ESL students‘ essays Overall, Ferris found that 80.4 per cent of the errors subject to CF were eliminated in the redrafted compositions by correcting the error, by deleting the text containing the error, or by making a correct substitution 9.9 per cent of the errors were incorrectly revised while in a further 9.9 per cent no change was made This study (along with a number of others) suggests that CF is effective in helping students to eliminate errors in redrafts of their writing However, from the perspective of L2 learning, such research is of limited interest, as Truscott (1996) pointed out, as showing that CF helps students to correct their errors in second drafts tells us nothing about whether they are able to use them in new pieces of writing Revision can also be viewed as part of written CF Chandler (op cit 2003) compared indirect CF plus the opportunity to revise with indirect CF where there was no opportunity to revise Chandler reported that accuracy improved from the first to the fifth piece of writing significantly more in the group that was required to correct their errors than in the group that just received indication of their errors Also, this increase in accuracy was not accompanied by any decrease in fluency Chandler noted that ‗what seems to be a crucial factor is having the students something with the error correction besides simply receiving it‘ In the Chandler study, the no-revision group was simply handed back their corrected writing It is possible, however, that if they had been asked to carefully examine the corrections, they would have shown similar improvements in accuracy to the group that revised following the CF Clearly, corrections can only work if writers notice and process them ... that this is one of the most time-consuming and exhausting aspects of their jobs Because of the perceived importance of error correction and the amount of emphasis both teachers and students place... findings of this thesis in the area of writing and the influence of teachers? ?? correction as well as students? ?? uptake would be relevant to teachers as well as students at school Aims of the study... UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES - o0o - PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG TEACHERS'' CORRECTIONOFWRITTENERRORS ANDSTUDENTS'' UPTAKE ( Cách chữa