VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ********************* NGUYỄN THỊ THU HIỀN AN ACTION RESEARCHON TEACHER’S ERROR CORRECTION IN YOUNG LEARNERS’ SPEAKING LESSONS AT ENGLISH HOUSE CENTRE, HANOI Nghiên cứu ứng dụng sư phạm: Vấn đề giáo viên chữa lỗi với học sinh nhỏ tuổi học nói trung tâm English House, Hà Nội M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 Supervisor: Dr Trần Thị Thu Hiền HANOI - 2017 DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis “An Action Researchon Teachers‟ Error Correction in Young learners‟ Speaking lessons at English House Centre, Hanoi” is my own work and effort has not been submitted anywhere for any purpose In addition, the contributions of my colleagues and students are involved Other sources of information have been used and acknowledged I cede copyright of the thesis in favor of Post-graduate Department-Vietnam National University Hanoi, 2017 Signature Nguyễn Thị Thu Hiền ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Tran Thi Thu Hien who has enthusiastically helped and encouraged me during the period of writing this research paper Her guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis I could not have imagined having a better mentor for my study Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank all of the instructors in my M.A course at the Post-Graduate Studies, College of Foreign Languages, Hanoi National University With their precious and professional lecturers and tutors, I can understand thoroughly difficult basic concepts regardless English teaching methodology I am also very grateful to my colleagues at English House center, Hanoi, who have created favorable conditions for me and have helped me on this research I also give my sincere thanks to all 16 students accompanying with me during the 12-week of the research Without them, I could not have these data as convincing evidence for my study Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family: my parents and to my sister for supporting me spiritually throughout writing this thesis Hanoi, 2017 ii ABSTRACT The present study intended to find out common spoken errors made by young learners and effective ways to correct these errors To this end, 16 Vietnamese young students aged to 10 were selected from the learners who are studying at Movers level Initially, Movers speaking test was used as a pre-test for assessing the participants speaking skills and finding their typicalerrors or participants which were administered Then, they received the conventional classroom error-correction on speaking skills After 12 weeks of instruction, Movers speaking test was done again by 16 chosen students, and the post-test for speaking was implemented The raw data gathered was subject to statistical analysis The findings and results collected are evidence to support the effectiveness of action research on oral error correction iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgements .ii Abstract iii Table of contents iv List of tables and figures vii PART ONE: INTRODUCTION Rationale Objectives of the study Research questions Scope of the study Significance of the study Structure of study PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Error correction 1.1.1 Definition of errors 1.1.2 Types and sources of errors 1.1.3.The complexity of error correction 1.1.4 Corrective feedback…………………………………… …………………7 1.1.5 Oral error correction for young learners……………………………… ……8 1.2 Young learners of English……………………………… ……………………9 1.2.1 Characteristics of Young learners of English………… …………… ……9 1.2.2 Teaching Speaking skills to Young learners…………… ……… …10 1.3 Action research………………………………………………… …… ……11 1.4 Chapter summary 13 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Setting 15 2.1.1 English House language center, Hanoi 15 iv 2.1.2 Participants 15 2.2 Data collectioninstruments 15 2.2.1 Pre-test and post-test 15 2.2.2 Interview for teachers…… 16 2.2.3 Classroom observation 17 2.3 Data collection and analysis 17 2.4 Action plan 18 2.5 Chapter summary 19 CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1 Pre-test result… 20 3.1.1 Phonological errors 20 3.1.2 Grammatical errors 21 3.1.3 Lexical errors 21 3.2 Interview result……… ………………….………………………… ………22 3.2.1.Common oral errors 22 3.2.2 Suitable time to correct spoken errors 23 3.2.3.Ways to correct errors 24 3.2.3.1 Phonological errors………………………………………………… … 24 3.2.3.2 Grammatical errors……………………………………… …………… 24 3.2.3.3 Lexical errors………………………………………… …………………24 3.3 Classroom observation result 25 3.3.1 Teacher A 25 3.3.2 Teacher B 26 3.3.3 Results 27 3.3.3.1.The type ofthe errors 27 3.3.3.2 Corrected and ignored errors 28 3.3.3.3.Correction practices 30 3.4 Post test result 31 3.4.1 Phonological errors 32 v 3.4.2 Grammatical errors 32 3.4.3 Lexical errors 33 3.5 Discussion… 33 PART THREE: CONCLUSION Recapitulation 36 2.Implications 36 Limitations of the study 38 Suggestions for further study 38 REFERENCES 40 APPENDIX 44 vi LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1.1: Action research cycle 13 Figure 2.1: Steps of data collection procedures 18 Figure 3.1: The most common oral errors 22 Figure 3.2: Ways to correct oral errors 25 Figure 3.3: The percentage of types of errors 28 Figure 3.4: The frequency of errors 29 Figure 3.5: Distribution of corrected and ignored errors 29 Figure 3.6: Corrected errors 30 Figure 3.7: Errors between the pre-test and post-test result 32 Table 2.1: Action plan 19 Table 3.1: Results of the pre-test 20 Table 3.2: Appropriate time to correct errors 24 Table 3.3: Demographic Teacher A 25 Table 3.4: Teacher A, Class No 26 Table 3.5: Demographic Teacher B 26 Table 3.6: Teacher B, Class No 27 Table 3.7: Oral errors made by participants at the post-test 31 vii PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.Rationale Over the last few years, the role oforal error correction has received considerable attention amongst language learners Many teachers have found that correcting learners‟oral error is the most challenging task Some following issues are raised: which errors should be corrected, how to correct these errors and when correction should be made without demotivating learners (Lourie, 2010) Compared to other skills, speaking needs greater effort from the learners because it must follow a process and to get feedback to see the immediate improvement While there are still negative views toward teaching children as some people may consider teaching English to young learners is as doing little as singing songs, playing games and telling some stories, this thesis may bring a new perspective on teaching English to young learners, as it is not easy to deliver the lesson no matter what the level of the learners is Secondly, it is asserted that error correction is one of the dilemmas for teachers Brown (2000) suggests that the feedback a learner gets upon making errors benefits him in developing the knowledge The danger of over-correction is that students may lose motivation and even destroy the flow of the class or the activity by correcting every single mistake (Jones, 2004) Finally, there are a number of researchers studying error correction; however there are not many researchers having studied on young learners As other learners, young learners also make mistakes when speaking or writing or even make more mistakes Being a teacher who often works with young learners, I experience the difficulties of learners and always desire to help them improve their language ability With all the reasons mentioned above, this thesis was chosen and seriously carried out in order to find out common spoken errors made by young learners and effective ways to correct these errors and to improve the way of teaching and learning, especially in term of speaking skills for young learners Objectives of the study The objectives of this study is to identify common spoken errors of young learners at English House Centre Besides, this paper also targets at finding out and evaluatingthe way teachers in English Housedeal with young learners‟ spoken errors Research questions In order to identifyyoung learners‟errors,the study has been conducted to answer the following research questions: What are common spoken errors made by young learners at English House, Hanoi? How language teachers treat spoken errors made by young learners at English House, Hanoi? How effective are the methods of correcting spoken errors to young learners applied by teachers at English Housecenter? In this study, the researcher uses action research to examine the educational practice systematically, and to be relevant with the objectives, it is done within the learning and teaching environment – that is, with the students and teachers – on questions that deal with the educational matters Scope of the study This study focuses on errors which young learners often make in speaking English and how corrective feedback is applied at English House centre, Hanoi Therefore, other approaches in teaching speaking skill for this kinds of students in other institutions will not be included in this study Significance of the study more time to practice Also, if there is more time, the teachers should assess the student‟s developmental stages accurately, so that both learners and the teachers can notice the gap between their obtained knowledge and their error which must be corrected Finally, it is recommended that the teachers should have more careful preparation on giving correction such as highlighting all possible common errors before delivering the lesson, so that in the class time if a student makes errors, the teacher can notice immediately and the young learners can concentrate on 39 REFERENCES Aoife, M (2008), Research for Action and Research in Action: Processual and Action Research in Dialogue?, Irish Journal of Management, 29(1), pp 1-15 Ary, D (2009), Introduction to Research in Education, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont-US Bordag, D (1998), Interlingual and Intralingual Interference during Gender Production, Department of Linguistics – University of Ottawa, 32(1), pp 1-23 Brown, D (1998), Interlingual and Intralingual Interference during Gender Production, Department of Linguistics – University of Ottawa, 32(1), pp 1-23 Brown, D H (2000), Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, State University Press, San Francisco Çakır, A (2004), Musical activities for young learners of EFL, The Internet TESL Journal, (11) Chaudron, C (1977), A Descriptive Model of Discourse in The Corrective Treatment of Learners‟ Errors, Language Learning, 27(1), pp 29-46 Chavez, M (2003), The sociolinguistics of Foreign Language classrooms: Contributions of the native, the near-native and the non-native speaker, Heinle & Heinle, Boston Coltrane, B (2003) Working with Young English language learners; Some considerations ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington 10 Corder, S P (1967), The Significance of Learners‟ Errors, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), pp 161-170 11 Corder, S P (1974), Error Analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition, Longman, London 12 Djigunovic, J M (2012), Attitudes and Motivation in Early Foreign Language Learning, Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 2(3), pp 55-74 13 Duff, P A (1990), How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom?, Modern Language Journal, 74(2), pp 154–166 40 14 Ellis, R (2009), Corrective feedback and teacher development, L2 Journal, 1, pp 3-18 15 Ferrance, E (2000), Action Research, Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University 16 Harmer, J (2002), The Practice of English Language Teaching Longman, London 17 Hung, N Q (2012) Teaching English for Young learners Ha Noi: Vietnam education 18 Hyland, K & Annan, E (2006) Teachers‟ Perceptions of Error: The Effects of First Language and Experience, System, 34(4), pp.509-519 19 James, C (1998), Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis, Addison Wesley Longman Inc, US 20 Jaber, F G (2002), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, SAGE Publications, US 21 Jones, N B (2004), MBTI Personality Type and the Utility of Error Correction, International Symposium on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching 22 Judith, P (2002), Planning Action, CHYPS Learning, UK 23 Kemmis, S (1982), The Action Research Planner, Deakin University Press, Victoria 24 Klein, K (2005), Teaching young learners, ELT Forum, 41 (1) pp 12-16 25 Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J M (2005) Error correction: Students‟ versus teachers‟ perceptions, Language Awareness, 14(2-3), pp 112-127 26 Lightbown, P M (1985), Input and acquisition for second language learners in and out of classrooms, Applied Linguistics, 6, pp 263-273 27 Lindsay, C (2006), Learning and Teaching English, Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK 28 Luoma, S (2004), Assessing Speaking, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 29 Lyster, R & Ranta, L (1997), Corrective feedback and learner uptake, Cambridge University Press, UK 30 Lyster, R (1998), Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Correction in Relation to Error Types and Learner Repair in Immersion Classrooms, Cambridge University Press 41 31 Lyster, R., & Sato, M., (2013), Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms Language Teaching, 46(1), pp 1-40 32 Patrick, M C (2013), Effective Action Research: Developing Reflective Thinking and Practice, Continuum Publishing Corporation, New York 33 Philips, S (1999), Young Learners, Oxford University Press 34 Pinter, A (2006), Teaching Young Language Learners, Oxford University Press, Oxford 35 Richards, J (1971), Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies EnglishLanguage Teaching, 25(1), pp.115-135 36 Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W.A (2002), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, Cambridge University Press 37 Sheen, Y (2011), Corrective feedback, individualdifferences and second language learning, Springer, Dordrecht 38 Siauw, M F (2016), Oral Corrective Feedback in an Intermediate EFL Conversation Class, The Institute of Research & Community Outreach - Petra Christian University, 18(2), pp 63-70 39 Richards, J C (2015), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, Routledge, New York 40 Slattery, M (2001), English for Primary Teachers – A handbook of activities and classroomlanguage, Oxford University Press, Oxford 41 Spada, N (1990), Focus-on-form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), pp.429–448 42 Speidel, G E (2000), Conversation and Language Learning in The Classroom, Children‟s language, 6, pp 99-135 43 Thornbury, S (2002), An A-Z of ELT, Macmillan Publishers Limited, Oxford 44 Tsang, W K (2004), Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms, RELC Journal, 35(2), pp.187-209 42 45 Ur, P (2000), A course in language teaching: Practice and theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 46 Wallace, M J (1998), Action Research for Language Teacher, Cambridge University Press, UK 43 Appendix 1: Interview questions What are the common oral errors of young learners at English House centre? Which oral errors should be corrected? When you correct your students' errors? How you correct your students‟ errors? I Appendix Lesson plan LESSON PLAN Teacher: Nguyen Thi Thu Hien Class: Kid4A UNIT – Lesson 1+2 (page 52, 53) Date: February 21st 2017 TIME: 90 minutes (including break time) OBJECTIVES: After the lesson, students will be able to: - To identify modern devices - To talk about modern technology MATERIAL Class book page 52, 53; CD – T 19, 20, 21, 22; PROCEDURE Stage Timing Activities + Ask students to form the circle and sit down on Warm-up 2-3 the floor + Sing the song My day Brainstorming: + Ask students to tell modern device they use everyday Vocabulary 15 - 20 New words + Use the flash cards to introduce: email, screen, MP3player, computer, the Internet, video, mouse + Ask students to listen and repeat Practice II + Read aloud new words individually + Ask students to look at the question Task (page 52) + Ask students to look at the picture and try to guess the answer Listening task + Get students listen track 19 CD 15 - 20 + Ask students to answer the question again + Listen and check students‟ answer Practice + Ask students to stand in two lines + Ask a question Two students have to answer the question as fast as possible Wrap-up 2-3 T asks students what they have learnt and what they are going to after break time BREAK TIME (5 minutes) + Ask students to open SB – page 53 and look at the picture + Ask students to look at the pictures and name the modern device Listening task + Song 15 - 20 + Tell students to sing the song and match to the picture + Get students to the tasks + Get students to sing along + Divide class into two groups Divide the lines and then swap (Use karaoke version if possible) + Ask students to look at SB page 53 Speaking task 15 - 20 + Ask students to read aloud the sentence + Write the sentence on the board Has your grandpa got a mobile phone? III No, he hasn‟t + Ask students how to say if the answer is yes + Write on the board (Yes, he has) + Ask students to read aloud and then read individually (Use elicitation as correction during this time) + Underline the word your grandpa and ask Ss to replace it with a similar word -> Students answer + Continue to underline mobile phone and ask Ss to replace it with another modern device Do the same with Can you use the computer? Yes, I can/ No, I can‟t + Ask students to work with the partners Game: + Ask students to stand in line + Show a word and ask two students in front to make sentence with this word (Use the above model) Wrap up Home work + Homework (WB – page 52, 53) IV Appendix 3: Error correction plan Week Unit Content Corrective feedback applied Correct the speaking Learn new words: email, test screen, Unit (page 52, 53) computer, MP3 player, the Internet, Elicitation video, mouse Do listening task Do speaking task Has your grandma got a mobile phone? Yes, he has Can you use your computer? Yes, I can Unit (page 56) Rhyming pairs Elicitation Speaking task: What did you yesterday morning? Unit (page 58, 59) Reading task Speaking about your photo Unit (page 62, 63) Revise: Animal words Repetition Metalinguistic clues (dolphin, elephant, tiger, snake, giraffe, whale) Superlative Speaking task: Make superlative sentence Unit (page 66) Learn vowel sounds V Repetition Speaking task: Do the survey Unit (page 68, 69) Listening task and answer Clarification request the question Unit (page 70, 71) Learn new words: bottle, Explicit correction box, bowl, cup, glass Food word: vegetables, pasta, salad, soup, sandwich, cheese Speaking task: Can you open the door please? He wants her to open the door Unit (page 74) Learn vowel sounds Repetition Speaking task: The game What am I? 10 Unit (page 77) Reading task: Food Metalinguistic clues pyramid New word: Protein, carbohydrates, Vitamins and calcium, minerals, Fats and sugars 11 Review Movers practice VI Elicitation Appendix 4: Movers Speaking Sample Test from Cambridge English Young Learners VII VIII IX X ...DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis ? ?An Action Researchon Teachers‟ Error Correction in Young learners‟ Speaking lessons at English House Centre, Hanoi” is my own work and effort has... to answer the following research questions: What are common spoken errors made by young learners at English House, Hanoi? How language teachers treat spoken errors made by young learners at English. .. related to the lack of success of error correction: the complexities determining what constitutes an error in a specific situation, and in consistently representing to the learner and having