10Th Grade Students’ Attitudes Towards Teachers’ Error Correction In Classroom Oral Activities At Do Son Boarding High School, Hai Phong.pdf

Output file VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ 10 th GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’ E[.]

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ 10th GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’ ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES AT DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT NỘI TRÚ ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI M.A MINOR THESIS Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 601410 HANOI - 2011 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES *** ĐỖ THỊ HỒNG HÀ 10th GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’ ERROR CORRECTION IN CLASSROOM ORAL ACTIVITIES AT DO SON BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL, HAI PHONG THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH LỚP 10 TRƯỜNG THPT NỘI TRÚ ĐỒ SƠN, HẢI PHÒNG ĐỐI VỚI VIỆC CHỮA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN TRONG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG NÓI M.A MINOR THESIS Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 601410 Supervisor : Khoa Anh Việt, M.A HANOI - 2011 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale of the Study Aims of the Study Scope of the Study Research Questions Methods of the Study .3 Significance of the Study Design of the Study Summary PART B: DEVELOPMENT .5 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of “Error” Types of Errors Distinction between “Error” and “Mistake” Perspectives on Errors and Error Correction 4.1 Perspectives on Errors 4.2 Perspectives on Error Correction The Role of Oral Error Correction 10 Techniques of Oral Error Correction .12 6.1 Explicit Correction 12 6.2 Recasts 12 6.3 Prompts .13 6.3.1 Clarification Requests 13 6.3.2 Elicitation 13 6.3.3 Metalinguistic Clues 13 6.3.4 Repetition 13 6.3.5 Finger-counting 14 6.3.6 Facial Expression .14 6.3.7 Gestures 14 6.4 Delayed Correction .14 v Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction 15 Summary 17 CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 18 II.1 Methodology 18 II.1.1 Context of the Study 18 II.1.2 Research Questions 19 II.1.3 Subjects of the Study .19 II.1.4 Data Collection Instruments 20 II.1.5 Data Collection Procedure 21 II.2 Findings and Discussion 21 II.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction 21 II.2.2 Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral error correction: 23 II.2.3 Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors: 25 II.2.3.1 Preferred types of errors to be corrected 25 II.2.3.2 Preferred timing of error correction .27 II.2.3.3 Preferred techniques of error correction 27 II.2.3.4 Preferred forms of error correction 30 II.3 Summary 31 PART C: CONCLUSION .32 Summary of the Findings .32 Recommendations for Teachers’ Error Correction in Oral Classroom Activities 33 2.1 Knowing about the Students .33 2.2 Working out Appropriate Error Correction Strategies .34 2.3 Creating a Supportive and Pleasant Classroom Environment 36 Limitations of the Study 36 Recommendations for Further Research 36 REFERENCES .38 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE I APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IX APPENDIX 3: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION NOTES X vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CLT: Communicative Language Teaching EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESL: English as a Second Language L2: Second Language SLA: Second Language Acquisition TESOL: Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Students’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning Table 2: Students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction Table 3: Students’ level of understanding of teachers’ oral error correction Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected Table 6: Students’ preferences for amount of error to be corrected Table 7: Students’ preferences for timing of error correction Table 8: Students’ preferences for error correction techniques Table 9: Students’ most favored and least favored correction techniques Table 10: Students’ preferences for error correction forms PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale of the Study The teaching and learning of English language is always on its progress to search for effective methodologies One of the issues which has constantly attracted great concern and discussion among many linguists, educational researchers and teachers is the correction of learners’ errors It has been widely accepted that error making is inevitable and it appears essential to the language learning process The correction of learners’ errors has also been recognized as an integral part of language teaching So far, a number of studies have been conducted to seek for effective methods of correcting learners’ errors with the aim of fostering more successful language learning The research findings have revealed that learners’ perceptions and attitudes towards instructional methods have a great influence on their achievement (Schulz’s, 1996, 2001) Teachers need to know learners’ beliefs about language teaching and learning because a mismatch between students’ expectations and the realities they encounter in the classroom can prevent improvement in language acquisition (Horwitz, 1988) In reality, such mismatch has been found in many settings including Vietnam, and as a result, it has brought about unsatisfactory learning outcomes This problem is not an exception in the context of Do Son Boarding High School where I have been working as a teacher of English From my professional experience and personal observation, I have realized that the teachers seem not to have paid much attention to what their students think and feel about oral error correction, whereas the students come to class with a variety of beliefs, learning styles and language proficiency, and they respond in different ways to the teachers’ error treatment Rather, the teacher-centered instruction tends to be dominant and the instructional techniques seem to follow “one size fits all” mode These factors have been proved to affect students’ progress in language learning in general and in speaking English in particular Rooted from the problem existing in my context and the awareness of the significance of oral error correction as well as the need for teachers to learn about their students’ perceptions and preferences for error treatment, I would like to conduct an investigation into “10th grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities at Do Son Boarding High School, Hai Phong” The fact that there has been limited research into this subject matter in the context of Vietnam has also inspired me to carry out this study It is hoped that the research outcomes will be able to assist teachers to gain more insights into the issues of oral error correction so that they can adjust or adopt appropriate methods catering for students’ needs with the aim of improving language learning Aims of the Study The specific aims of the study are: • to find out what students think about the correction of oral errors delivered by their teachers such as whether they like their errors to be corrected, and how important they think teachers’ error correction to their learning of English • to understand how students respond to the current methods of correcting oral errors employed by their teachers, for example, to what extent they understand their teachers’ correction, and how effective they think their teachers’ instruction is • to explore in what ways students expect their oral error correction to be delivered (e.g which errors to correct, when to correct, how to correct) with the aim of matching teachers’ instruction and students’ expectations so that teachers can make best use of their methods to enhance language learning Scope of the Study It is clear that oral error correction is a broad issue A study on students’ attitudes towards oral error correction apparently opens for a variety of subject matters which cannot be entirely discussed within the scope of a minor thesis Therefore, in this study, I would like to restrict the focus to investigating the attitudes towards teachers’ methods of spoken error correction among a group of 10th grade students at Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city Research Questions In an attempt to achieve the aims stated above, the present study aims to address three research questions: What are the students’ perceptions of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error correction? What are the students’ reactions to the current practices of teachers’ oral error correction? What are the students’ preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors? Methods of the Study In order to seek for answers to the research questions, various sources of data were used from a survey questionnaire, classroom observations and interviews The main instrument for collecting data is a survey questionnaire aimed to discover what the students think about the role of errors and error correction, how they evaluate the current practices of teachers’ error correction, and how they prefer their errors to be corrected in classroom oral activities The study also included classroom observations to investigate how error correction was delivered in the classroom to see if there was anything not revealed or anything that confirms comments made by the students in the questionnaire Semi-structured interviews with a small group of students were added to the instruments described above to get deeper insights into students’ attitudes and expectations for teachers’ error correction methods Significance of the Study The issue of teacher’s oral error correction has presented certain problems for both EFL teachers and students due to the mismatch between teachers’ actual practices and students’ expectations As a result, the teachers’ error treatment in classroom oral activities has not reached adequate efficiency This study therefore hopes to find out reasonable answers to the research questions so that teachers can gain more awareness of the significance of students’ beliefs and their influence on the language teaching and learning By comparing students’ attitudes and preferences with actual classroom practices, teachers are hoped to find out their own appropriate ways for delivering oral error correction to their students Design of the Study The thesis contains three main parts as follows: • Part A provides an introduction of the study including the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the study organization • Part B consists of two chapters Chapter presents the theoretical background for the thesis including definitions and classifications of error; distinction between the notions of “error” and “mistake”; major perspectives on the role of errors and error correction in general and of oral error correction in particular; common techniques of oral error correction; and review of previous studies on students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ oral error correction Chapter describes the methodology underlying the research including the background information about the context and subjects of the study, the instruments used to collect the data, the procedure of data collection, and detailed description of data analysis and discussion of the study results • Part C presents the summary of the findings and some pedagogical suggestions for teachers delivering error correction in classroom oral activities The limitations of the study and some recommendations for further research are also discussed in this part Summary This chapter presents an overview of the study with specific reference to the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the significance, the scope, the methods and the study organization The next chapter will provide the theoretical background for the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT 11 Oral errors, as described in Lennon’s (1991:72) “occur where the speaking fails to follow the pattern or manner of speech of educated people in English speaking countries” Over the past few decades, the correction of oral errors in second and foreign language learning has been explored in many studies Since Chaudron’s (1977) influential descriptive research on oral error correction, investigations into corrective feedback have played an important role in both theory-construction and pedagogy More recently, Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) study of oral error correction in the context of immersion classrooms has strongly influenced later developments of the matter It has provided the basis for more comprehensive and systematic research into oral error correction in SLA and increased great interest in the application of different types of error correction in language teaching The role of oral error correction has become a controversial issue among many linguists, researchers and language practitioners Some researchers imply that teachers should not correct students’ spoken errors Truscott (1999), for example, provides an indepth investigation against delivering oral error correction on grammar He mentions some obstacles facing teachers and learners in giving and receiving effective oral error correction, including the ability to identify the error without ambiguity, to evaluate the intended meaning correctly, and to deal with the error within the context in an appropriate way The supporters of this debate include Allwright (1975), Fanselow (1977), and Hendrickson (1978) However, Lyster, Lightbown, and Spada’s (1999) disapprove of Truscott’s argument They claim strong support for the provision of oral error correction and consistently report a desire for it A number of recent studies have also demonstrated the positive effect of oral error correction They have shown that the correction of oral errors can contribute to L2 language acquisition (Sheen, 2010) Oral error correction in ESL and EFL classrooms is regarded as an instrument for teachers to immediately help students correct their errors so as to prevent fossilization, “the process by which non-target forms become fixed” (Ellis, 1997:353), and to achieve better results The effectiveness of that instrument, however, depends on the approaches to language teaching Traditionally, errors have been considered negative, yet this view has changed since a communicative approach was adopted The shift has been from a formfocused teaching approach, which puts more emphasis on correctness regarding pronunciation and grammar, to meaning-focused approach, which pays more attention to vocabulary and meaning and tolerates more mistakes and errors Both approaches are 12 significant to English language teaching and therefore need an even distribution It is of great importance that the teacher is aware of when form-focused instruction is appropriate and in what situations meaning-focused instruction would have a better effect in order to balance fluency work, without correction, with accuracy work, where correction is used positively The correction of oral errors obviously requires much consideration because of the fact that spoken errors in normal communication often happen even when people are speaking in their mother tongue The place of oral error correction in the classroom depends on what is considered the main objective of the target language learning that teachers expect their students to achieve Techniques of Oral Error Correction There are different ways of delivering error correction in language classrooms This study utilizes three major types of error correction suggested by Lyster and Mori (2006): explicit correction, recasts, and prompts Explicit and recasts supply learners with target reformulations of their non-target output Prompts, on the other hand, include a variety of signals other than alternative reformulations that push learners to self-repair (e.g elicitation, metalinguistic clues, clarification requests and repetition) Such techniques as using gestures and facial expression proposed by Edge (1989) and Mumford and Darn (2005) are also included in this classification Following are further description and illustration of these error correction types which can be applied for the correction of oral errors in language classrooms 6.1 Explicit Correction: The teacher clearly indicates that what the student said was incorrect and then provides the correct form using such terms as “I’m sorry … is wrong / You shouldn’t say … / You should say … / We don’t say … / We (can) say … / Pay attention to … / There is a mistake in …” Example 1: S: Last weekend we go to the countryside T: I’m sorry, “go” is wrong You should say “went” 6.2 Recasts: The teacher does not directly point out that the students’ utterance was incorrect but repeats all or part of the students’ utterance using the correct form Example 2: S: I have a history /'hɪstɔri/ lesson at 8:55 on Thursday 13 T: A history /'hɪstri/ lesson 6.3 Prompts 6.3.1 Clarification Requests: The teacher indicates that the student’s utterance has been misunderstood or contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition or reformulation is required A clarification request includes such phrases as “Pardon? / I don’t understand … / What you mean by …?” Example 3: T: How often you watch TV? S: Fourteen a week T: Fourteen what? 6.3.2 Elicitation: The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking questions (e.g “How we say that in English?”), by pausing to allow the student to complete the teacher’s utterance, or by asking the student to reformulate his or her utterance (e.g “Please say that again.”) Example 4: T: What kinds of film you like? S: I like cartoons and …er … amusing …er… T: So an amusing film, we’ll call that a …? Example 5: S: I find horror films really interested T: You find horror films really ….? 6.3.3 Metalinguistic Clues: The teacher poses questions (e.g “Do we say it like that?”) or provides information related to the formation of the student’s utterance Example 6: S: I prefer London to New York because it has more park T: Do we say “park” here? “Park” is singular It must be in the plural after “more” 6.3.4 Repetition: The teacher repeats the student’s error and changes intonation to draw student’s attention to it Example 7: S: My father enjoys listen to classical music T: Listen? Sharing the techniques for correcting oral errors, Edge (1989) and Mumford and Darn (2005) suggest some other types of prompts namely finger-counting, expression and 14 gestures These techniques help students realize their errors and get a chance for selfcorrection 6.3.5 Finger-counting: This technique can be used when a sound, a syllable in a word or a word in a sentence is missing Example 8: S: If we had had more time, we could have visit all the places T: Well, vi…sit…? (As the teacher says “vi…sit…”, he holds up three fingers of one hand to show that the word has three syllables in it He then uses the other hand to point to the first finger as he says “vi” and the second finger as he says “sit” As he points to the third finger, he pauses for the student to add the “ed”.) 6.3.6 Facial Expression: The teacher points out the student’s error with a questioning expression on his face such as turning face to the side and frowning 6.3.7 Gestures: The teacher shows the student where the error is by using gestures with his head (e.g shaking head, turning head or pulling ear as if he did not hear quite properly) Also, the teacher can create his own correction symbols with hands and fingers (e.g crossing hands over to show wrong order, making a scissors motion with fingers to cut out unnecessary words, using a circling hand motion to prompt continuous, holding thumb and forefinger close together to show a small word missing) These hand signs may take time for students to learn but they can bring humor to the task of correction and avoid the need for words 6.4 Delayed Correction As suggested by Edge (1989), it is important for some of the time that students are not corrected but simply encouraged She explains that students need the experience of uninterrupted and meaningful communication when they are trying to use the language in real situations Thus, encouragement should be paid more attention than correction if the teacher desires to bring about fluency in language use When the teacher hears errors, he is advised to take note of them If there are common errors, the teacher can write them on the board after the activity and ask for correction from the class In case teacher hears a lot of 15 errors in important points she has been trying to teach, she need not worry much about correction but think of other ways of presenting the same point again In short, a good strategy for correcting oral errors can boost student motivation, build confidence, and create a satisfying learning experience However, the nature of such an oral error correction strategy remains unclear and even controversial In order to make best use of the error correction techniques, teachers should take many factors into great consideration, especially those related to the learners such as their needs, language proficiency and learning attitudes Previous Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Teachers’ Oral Error Correction It is obvious that individual students differ from each other in their attitudes towards errors and error correction The differences are proved to have great impact on the effectiveness of teachers’ error correction strategies Thus, being aware of students’ attitudes and expectations will help teachers to choose the appropriate ways of error correction and to make best use of their choice There have been a number of studies on students’ perceptions, beliefs and preferences for the correction of errors (e.g Schulz, 1996; Mackey et al, 2000; Ancker, 2000; Schulz, 2001; Salinki, 2001; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Park, 2010) Concerning students’ views on the role of oral error correction, Schulz (2001) conducted a survey to 122 Colombian foreign language instructors, 607 Colombian foreign language students, 92 U.S foreign language instructors, and 824 U.S EFL students The findings revealed that students from both cultures expressed strong expectations for teachers to correct oral errors during class, with 94% of U.S and 95% of Colombian students In another study, Markey et al (2000) investigated how learners perceive error correction and whether learners’ perceptions affect their language development The researchers found that learners were generally accurate about their perceptions of phonological and lexical correction; however, learners’ perceptions of morphosyntactic correction were usually confused with correction about semantics or lexis Researchers have compared teachers’ and students’ perceptions of error correction and found mismatches between them Schulz’s (1996, 2001) studies revealed that students’ attitudes toward error correction were more favorable than their teachers’ attitudes; that is, 16 learners want more error correction Schulz argues that “such lack of pedagogical face validity could affect learners’ motivation” (p.349) Teachers, therefore, need to explore their students’ perceptions and expectations to close the gap and maximize the effects of teaching Noticeably, Ancker’s (2000) action research into teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards error correction in 15 countries also found a big gap between the teachers and students For example, when being asked whether teachers should correct every error students make when using English, only 25% of teachers answered “yes” while 76% of students answered “yes.” The teachers explained that correction could have negative impact on students’ confidence and motivation, whereas the reason for students’ expectation was the importance of learning to speak English correctly Ancker suggests that teachers should establish clear objectives in lesson plans, discuss the learning process with students, and employ alternative types of correction that can be beneficial to students to close the gap between teachers’ and learners’ expectations Students’ expectations for error correction methods were varied in different investigations Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) investigated how teachers and students perceive the effectiveness of oral error correction The study conducting with ten teachers and eleven students in an EFL context showed the result that the students found constant correction unhelpful because it inhibits language production This result complied with the one from Salinki’s (2001) study in which 89 students participating in a survey say that they not like to be corrected while they are talking for fear of being nervous or lose their confidence However, students wished to be corrected by their teachers but in a more selective and explicit way with a focus on a smaller number Students expressed that teachers should devote more time to each correction, and they should also use more strategies and resources when correcting oral errors One of the latest studies on learners’ preferences for error correction was carried out by Park (2010) with 160 adult ESL students and 18 native English speaking teachers in Northern California The findings of the survey showed that both the teachers and students agreed that errors should be treated, but students wanted more correction than their teachers thought The students regarded immediate error correction that can interrupt the flow of conversation as effective Both the teachers and students believed that serious and frequent errors should be treated, but the students wanted to receive more error treatment, 17 even on infrequent and individual errors Elicitation, explicit feedback, and implicit correction were the most favored types of error correction among the students The students with high anxiety welcomed all sources of error correction, but those with low anxiety did not value their peers’ correction There has been an increased interest in the area of students’ attitudes and preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors Researchers imply that it is necessary for teachers to ascertain students’ specific perceptions, beliefs and expectations in order to adjust teachers’ instructional practices appropriately However, the previous studies have mainly focused on the settings of colleges and universities In Vietnam in particular, to my knowledge, there is also relatively little research into this issue in the contexts of high schools Thus, the present study is one attempt to add to the literature on this important topic Summary This chapter has presented a review of the literature relevant to the study through a critical synthesis of the related materials Specifically, the literature review illustrates essential perspectives on error correction and useful techniques of oral error correction in the classroom so that we can get more accurate insights and directions Also, the chapter discusses the significance of students’ beliefs and attitudes towards language teaching and learning in the way that it enhances teachers to make best use of the methods for their effective language education CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY In the previous chapter, I have reviewed relevant literature to form the theoretical background for my study This chapter presents the methodology I chose for the 18 achievement of the aims of the study, the analysis of the data collected and the discussion of the findings II.1 Methodology II.1.1 Context of the Study The study was conducted at Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city The school is situated in the district of Do Son and is only ten years of age It has a total of 388 students and 53 teachers from different parts of the city There are three teachers in the English group of the school They are all female aged between 29 and 33 and they have at least five years of teaching experience Two out of three teachers were trained at Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies and one of them is now studying for M.A degree at this university The research was carried out with the participation of 10th grade students Most of them come from the remote islands and rural areas around the city and they generally have rather poor educational standard They find learning English, especially speaking skill, really challenging The English language teaching and learning in my school follow the national curriculum - just like many other schools around the country English is taught as a compulsory subject and, specifically, as one of the core subjects in the national examinations at the end of compulsory education The textbook and the syllabus for English are prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training The “Tieng Anh 10” course book is designed under the light of communicative approach in which students learn not only the primary aspects of language such as grammar, vocabulary and phonology but also engaging classroom activities through the skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing In reality, the teaching and learning of English in my school has not reached much satisfaction as required due to both internal and external factors Concerning the matter of English speaking in particular, the situation seems to be more problematic Although they have been learning English for at least four years, most of the students find it really difficult to speak in English and thus spoken errors are made very often This is due to such constraints as students’ lack of language proficiency, low motivation in speaking activities, large-sized classes, not well-equipped classrooms, and the neglect of speaking 19 improvement due to pressure of examination success on the part of both teachers and students Towards successful language teaching and learning, it is essential for the teachers to investigate the issues concerned and find out effective solutions II.1.2 Research Questions As stated in the first part Introduction, this study was designed in an attempt to search for answers to the following questions: What are the students’ perceptions of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error correction? What are the students’ reactions to the current practices of their teachers’ oral error correction? What are the students’ preferences for teachers’ correction of oral errors? II.1.3 Subjects of the Study The subjects in this study were 120 students both male and female from three classes of grade 10 in Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city Half of them have been learning English since grade and the rest since grade These students vary in terms of background, ability, interest, learning styles and attitudes, and so forth Of the three classes, class 10C has the most incompetent students The teacher participants consisted of two female teachers from the English group of my school One teacher has been teaching English for years and the other years Both of them voluntarily and enthusiastically participated in this study There are reasons for my choice of 10th grade students as the subjects of this study On the one hand, students of grade 10 are more eager to speak English in class than those of 11th or 12th grades and thus they are believed to have more interest in the issue investigated and invest more thoughts for it On the other hand, findings of the study are hoped to provide teachers with practical and useful recommendations as soon as possible for better teaching and learning in the forthcoming school years II.1.4 Data Collection Instruments In order to obtain data for the study, such instruments as survey questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and classroom observations were employed 20 The main instrument for collecting data in the study was the questionnaire It is considered the most popular method of data collection for its efficiency in terms of time, effort and expense It also produces clear information as the knowledge needed is controlled by the questions Besides, data can be gathered in different locations at different times, yet comparable (McDonough, J & S., 1997) In order to achieve the purpose of the study, I designed a questionnaire (Appendix 1) which comprised 10 questions of such types as multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, ranked questions and scaled questions It was translated into Vietnamese with the help of the two teacher participants and clearly instructed to ensure students’ understanding of all the questions before answering them The student identity was not required so that students could feel free and comfortable to express their opinions, hence more honest responses The questionnaire is designed as follows: Questions 1-2 are aimed to find out students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction Questions 3-4 deal with students’ reactions to their teacher’s actual practice of oral error correction Questions 5-10 are concerned with students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors: what types of errors they want to be corrected (Questions 5-6), when and how they want teachers’ error correction to be delivered (Questions 7-9), and who they prefer to correct the errors (Question 10) Interviewing is also a popular technique It has a potential for openness, giving room for individual expression and information exchange in ordinary language with all its freedom and sensitivity (McDonough, J & S., 1997) In order to gain more in-depth information about students’ attitudes towards their teacher’s treatment of errors, I decided to interview a small group of students selected randomly from each class The interviews were designed in a semi-structured form which can allow for richer interactions and more personalized responses while remaining in control of the interviewer (Appendix 2) The other supplementary instrument for data collection was classroom observations which were carried out in three classes of 10th grade during the study The main purpose of this instrument was to seek for more detailed information about what the teachers actually did and how the students responded to teachers’ instruction (Appendix 3) 21 II.1.5 Data Collection Procedure In the first place, the questionnaires were pilot-tested with 20 student participants to check whether there emerged any problems for the respondents in answering the questions Fortunately, the respondents in the pilot-testing found no difficulty or ambiguity in understanding the questionnaire They also showed interest and willingness to take part in the study After the pilot testing, the questionnaires were delivered to 120 student participants of 10th grade in their classrooms The survey was conducted at the end of the class meeting periods of the three classes with the head teachers’ permission The students completed the questionnaire in about 30 minutes The data were then collected and analyzed both descriptively and interpretively The next step was the conduction of semi-structured interviews with a small group of ten students randomly selected from the three classes Vietnamese was used in the interviews to guarantee good understanding During the interviews, the researcher took note of the students’ answers Due to technical constraints, the interviews as well as the classroom observations were not audiotaped or videotaped During the research, classroom observations were conducted with the three 10th grade classes in several periods In each class observed, the researcher acted as a nonparticipant observer and took notes of the teacher’s instruction concerning frequency of delivering correction, the types of errors which were in focus of the teacher’s correction and the teacher’s employment of correction techniques II.2 Findings and Discussion The following results address the three research questions in the study II.2.1 Students’ perceptions of oral errors and oral error correction Question and in the survey questionnaire aimed at exploring students’ awareness of the role of oral errors and teachers’ oral error correction in the EFL classrooms The collected data are summarized in the tables below Respondents Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly (No) Agree (%) (%) (%) (%) Disagree (%) 22 120 15.0 65.0 11.7 5.8 2.5 Table 1: Students’ perceptions on the role of oral errors in language learning Respondents Very Necessary Necessary Fairly Necessary Unnecessary (N) (%) (%) (%) (%) 120 62.5 37.5 0 Table 2: Students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction As can be seen from table 1, a majority of the students were aware of the usefulness of oral errors in English language learning (65% agree and 15% strongly agree) Most of the respondents stated that speaking is a difficult skill and the occurrence of errors in English speaking is therefore unavoidable Many of them explained that making errors gives them chance to understand more about what they have learnt and what needs to be improved in the future, hence better learning development In general, there was a consensus among many students that “to err is human” and “failure is the mother of success”, which built their positive attitudes towards the making of errors in the classroom However, there were 8.3% of the students showing their disagreement on the important role of oral errors Those who had neutral ideas about this matter make up a proportion of 11.7% It is a common belief among these students that errors indicate their failure in language learning and, unfortunately, degrade their learning progress in general and speaking ability in particular Thus, making errors is not helpful but unacceptable and must be avoided Regarding students’ perceptions on the role of teachers’ oral error correction, the results presented in table showed that no student denied the significance of teachers’ correction Seventy-five students (62.5%) emphasized that it was very necessary for teachers to deliver correction of students’ spoken errors The most common reason for this positive attitude was that it would help students improve language accuracy which they considered very important to effective speaking Many students stated that they need their errors to be corrected so that potentially repeated errors could be avoided Every time they are corrected, the students could get better understanding and memorizing of the language and thus their speaking ability would be enhanced Some students added that error correction would help them not only speak English better but improve other language aspects and skills as well 23 II.2.2 Students’ reactions to teachers’ actual practices of oral error correction: Question and question in the questionnaire were concerned with the students’ reactions to their teachers’ correction of errors in actual practice The findings are presented in the following tables Respondents Totally Understand Roughly Understand Not Understand (N) (%) (%) at all (%) 120 33.3 64.2 2.5 Table 3: Students’ level of understanding of teachers’ oral error correction Respondents (N) 120 Much Moderate Little No Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement (%) (%) (%) (%) 39.2 46.7 14.1 Table 4: Students’ level of improvement in speaking skill due to teachers’ correction According to the results shown in table 3, 33.3% of the students could completely understand their teachers’ correction of oral errors, whereas those who understood it with little clarity made up a higher percentage (64.2%) However, the students confessing that they could not understand anything accounted for a very low proportion (2.5%) When asked about the factors affecting their comprehension, 88% of the students supplied the answers while 22% left the space for providing reasons empty or just ended the question Tải FULL (62 trang): https://bit.ly/3BbxHaN with “I don’t know” Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net One possible reason to explain why many students said they roughly understood their teachers’ correction of oral errors is students’ language proficiency When the teacher corrected spoken errors, many students with limited language knowledge and ability found it rather difficult to comprehend the correction right away A related factor is students’ lack of attention and loss of concentration in such noisy classrooms, which probably caused a failure for students to catch what the teacher had corrected Another plausible factor that explains why not all the teacher correction was completely understood by the students is the quality of correction regarding its consistency, accuracy and comprehensibility Some students stated that the teachers’ correction strategies were not quite suitable for their language ability and needs Some others said they could hardly understand the teachers’ explanation for it was either too fast 24 or not clear enough Besides, a small number of students with high level of learning anxiety confessed that they were afraid of asking the teacher for re-correction so that they could get better understanding of their problem As revealed in the classroom observation data, the most common correction technique adopted by both teachers was recast (i.e the teacher repeats the student’s utterance in the correct form without pointing out the student’s error) This method seemed to bring little effectiveness to the students of low level as it sometimes caused a mismatch between teacher’s intention and student’s interpretation, especially when correcting grammatical and lexical errors As observed in class 10C where most of the students have low language proficiency, some errors were repeated during the oral activities for the students did not realize which errors they had made and how they had been corrected (e.g the error in pronouncing the word “because”) Additionally, as observed in all three classes, the teachers sometimes delivered correction in a hurry due to press of time and this therefore led to vague understanding of the correction among many students The answers to the question whether teachers’ correction of oral errors helped students improve their speaking skill was analyzed and presented in table The findings show that students’ speaking skill was mostly improved by the teacher correction, yet with different degrees of improvement 39.2% of the students claimed that they got much improvement in speaking English while 46.7% stated that their oral skill was improved moderately Only 14.1% of the students complained that they got little improvement and, fortunately, no one said that their speaking was not improved at all Obviously, teachers’ correction of spoken errors more or less facilitated students’ speaking skill despite the fact Tải FULL (62 trang): https://bit.ly/3BbxHaN that it has not reached adequate success Dự phòng: fb.com/TaiHo123doc.net In order to learn more about the students’ attitudes towards their teachers’ oral error correction in actual practices, ten students randomly selected for the interview was asked how they felt when being corrected by their teachers and whether they were satisfied with their teachers’ current correction strategies or not All of the students said that they did not mind being corrected and even felt good about that in spite of the fact, as confessed in the interview, that they made errors in speaking quite often However, only half of them said they were satisfied with their teachers’ correction of errors The students interviewed all emphasized the need for more explicit correction and more detailed explanation from their teachers 25 II.2.3 Students’ preferences for teacher correction of oral errors: Questions 5-10 in the questionnaire dealt with how students expected their errors to be corrected regarding types of errors, timing of error correction, error correction techniques and forms II.2.3.1 Preferred types of errors to be corrected Questions and question were to explore students’ preferences for the types of errors to be corrected The data collected are described in the tables as follows Rank Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Content (%) 40.0 16.7 34.1 13.4 (%) 31.7 22.5 19.2 20.8 (%) 20.8 40.0 29.2 10.8 (%) 7.5 20.8 17.5 55.0 Table 5: Students’ preferences for types of errors to be corrected 1: most preferred – 4: least preferred Respondents (N) (%) (%) (%) (%) 120 47.5 26.7 10.8 15.0 Table 6: Students’ preferences for amount of error to be corrected 1: All errors; 2: Repeated errors; 3: Only a few major errors; 4: Only errors that might interfere with communicating ideas It can be seen from table that the students desired to receive teachers’ error correction in the areas of grammar (40%) and pronunciation (34.1%) more than in vocabulary (16.7%) and content (13.4%) The students indicated that grammatical errors should receive the highest attention, closely followed by phonological errors The students’ preference for the correction of grammatical errors may be explained by the current teaching of the English language Throughout junior and senior high school, English grammar is always regarded a very important component of the curriculum A great deal of emphasis is put on grammar-oriented instruction with the aim of providing students with good preparation for various kinds of tests and examinations which primarily consist of grammatical items In this trend, students are required to have good knowledge of grammar in order to achieve success in such tests and examinations Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the students’ priority for the correction of grammatical errors 6815307 ... students’ perceptions and preferences for error treatment, I would like to conduct an investigation into ? ?10th grade students’ attitudes towards teachers’ error correction in classroom oral activities. .. of grade 10 in Do Son Boarding High School in Hai Phong city Half of them have been learning English since grade and the rest since grade These students vary in terms of background, ability, interest,... the Findings .32 Recommendations for Teachers’ Error Correction in Oral Classroom Activities 33 2.1 Knowing about the Students .33 2.2 Working out Appropriate Error Correction