1

Chapter I: Introduction
1. Rationale of the Study
Recently, research interest in the teachers’ implicit theories that underlie their
classroom behaviors has been increasing. It is commonly agreed that each teacher
possesses a variety of personal knowledge about pedagogical issues including beliefs about
how to plan the lesson, how to teach, how to correct learners’ errors, ect. Continuous
research on this area has showed that what the teachers do in the classroom is governed by
what they believe and these beliefs often serve as a filter through which instructional
judgments and decisions are made (Shavelson and Stern, 1981). Thus, attention to
teachers’ beliefs can inform educational practices in the ways that prevailing research has
not and is essential to improving their professional preparation and teaching practices
(Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992) also affirms that the study of beliefs is critical to educational
practices. She argues that beliefs may be "the clearest measure of a teacher’s professional
growth" (p.54) and that understanding them is "instrumental in determining the quality of
interaction one finds among teachers in a given school" (p.85). Rokeach (1968) concludes
that beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions made by individuals in the course of
their lifetime.
Within TESOL, there has been growing realization of a need to understand, and
account for the underlying belief systems of language teachers and the impact these have
on their classroom practices (Farrell, 2005). However, in Vietnam to our knowledge there
is relatively little research in teacher beliefs and classroom practices. This gave me the
desire to investigate the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices regarding
oral error correction, which has been a focus of pedagogical strategies since the late 1960s
when the trend away from the audiolingualism has contributed to a renewed interest in the
use of language as communication.
2. Statement of the Problem
Oral error correction is a complex issue, and the teacher seems to correct oral errors
intuitively. However, much of the research on teachers’ beliefs has so far focused on the
3

6. Significance of the Study
Ways of oral error correction and the relationship of these with classroom practices
have often been neglected by teachers so far, the answer to the research questions hopes to
provide insights into both what teacher believed and actually did in the classroom, teachers
then can be aware of the importance of accessing teachers' beliefs and comparing these
beliefs with actual classroom practices “when teachers become more aware of how they
teach and how their students learn, then the whole educational process becomes more
enjoyable and meaningful for the stakeholders: teachers and students”( Miler , 2004). It is
also hoped that this study can act as a catalyst in enabling other teachers to reflect on and
examine their own beliefs about their ways of oral error correction.
7. Definition of Terminologies.
Teachers’ Beliefs
Teachers’ beliefs represent a complex and inter-related system of personal and
professional knowledge that serves as implicit theories for experiencing and responding to
reality. Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held. (Adapted from Murphy, 1998)
The reason for choosing this definition of teacher beliefs will be presented in the
literature review of the study
The Notion of Errors
The notion of errors is complicated by its nature. Different researchers may have
different concepts of errors. It depends upon different considerations or in other words it
depends on how language is approached.
Corder (1975) states “ if language as a code, a set of rules for generating
syntactically, phonologically and semantically well-formed sentences , then a breach of the
code, i.e. a use of wrong rules or misuse of the right rules may , but not necessarily, result
in superficially ill-formed sentences”.(p.123)


differentiation. The distinction resulted from the term “competence errors” and

5

“performance error”, to use Chomsky’s (1965) terms, in which the former is derived from
incomplete knowledge or inadequate competence of the target language, the later is caused
by some aspects of verbal performance such as lack of attention, fatigue or careless. That
point of view is later supported by Corder (ibid.) when he makes a distinction between
systematic errors i.e. those caused by the formulation of incorrect hypothesis about the
target language and non-systematic error i.e. those caused by “memory lapses, physical
states, such as tiredness and psychological conditions such as strong emotion”. However,
Duskova (1969) with her investigation of errors made by Czech learners of English in an
attempt to look for a reasonable answer discovered that the above –mentioned principle of
distinction was not reliable. She found that many recurrent systematic errors: failure to
express genitive relation or confusion of the passive of an active voice, ect reflected no
defects in knowledge at all. The explanation provided for these cases was the lack of
autonomy in rule application. Kielhofer cited in Schachter (1974) also supported this
point of view by stating that a large number of errors of performance might indicate the
lack of habit in using language skill, therefore lack of L2 competence of learners.
McKating, by giving one example of student getting things right in one paragraph
but wrong in context , implies that not all so –called “ careless” mistakes are caused by
carelessness. The learner may be unsure of the choice, so he just tries out the rules and
hopes to be right some of the time. He shows that the possibility to self correction will not
always work in distinguishing errors and mistakes. He shows cases where a student knows
that one of two forms is correct but uncertain which. When the teacher tells him that he has
made an error in the first place, he knows the other must be the right one and he corrects
the wrong one. It is not a proof that this error is really a lapse.
In addition, Corder (opcit.) though admits that the distinction between error and
mistake is by no mean easy, he claims that “mistakes are of no significance to the process
of language learning” even native speakers commit them as slip of the tongue or the pen.

correction of learner errors in second and foreign language acquisition. Throughout the
1950s and the mid-1960s, when the audio-lingual approach to teaching foreign languages
was in full swing, learner errors were something to avoid. In his book, Language and
Language Learning, Nelson Brooks (1960 cited in Ha 2005) stated, “Like sin, error is to be
avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is expected” (p. 56). In this period, an
example of the specific guidelines for error correction appears in The Teachers’ Manual
for German, Level One, prepared by the Modern Language Materials Development Center
(1961), which states that teachers should correct all errors immediately and that the
students should be neither required nor permitted to discover and correct their own
mistakes.
Beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, however, studies in
Transformational-generative grammar, first-language acquisition, and cognitive
psychology have contributed to a trend away from audiolingualism (Shultz, 1996). In this
new paradigm of language teaching, instead of expecting students to produce error -free
sentences, students were encouraged to communicate in the target language. Furthermore,
producing errors came to be viewed as a natural and useful part of second-language
acquisition (Corder, 1973; Lange, 1977 cited in Ha, 2005), which could provide language
teachers with feedback on the effectiveness of their teaching. As second-language errors

8

began to be perceived as a natural process of acquisition, teachers were consequently
discouraged from explicitly treating learner errors. Communicative approaches
downplayed the role of explicit error correction (Schultz, 1996). However, based on
increasing evidence that corrective feedback can indeed facilitate L2 acquisition ( Ellis
1989; Long 1983, among many), a growing number of researchers point out the
detrimental effect of “the lack of consistent and unambiguous feedback” (Allen et. al.
1990, p. 67) and call for a reevaluation of the negative view on error correction arguing
that error correction provides learners with negative input which might be essential for
mastery of a second language.

‘acquired’ store (Ellis 1982) or a trigger, forcing students to think carefully about how best
to express the meanings they wish to convey (Swain 1985: 249). Part of the value of such
activities lies in the various attempts that students have to make to get their meanings
across; processing language for communication is, in this view, the best way of processing
language for acquisition. Teacher intervention in such circumstances can raise stress levels
and stop the acquisition process in its tracks (Harmer, 2001). Therefore error correction
during accuracy work should be clearly different from error correction during fluency
work. The following techniques for error correction during accuracy and fluency are
suggested by Harmer ( 2001)
2.1 Correction during Accuracy Work
Correction is usually made up of two distinct stages. In the first, teachers show
students that a mistake has been made, and in the second, if necessary, they help the
students to do something about it. The first set of techniques we need to be aware of, then,
is devoted to showing incorrectness. These techniques are only really beneficial for what
we are assuming to be language slips rather than embedded errors. The students are being
expected to be able to correct themselves once the problem has been pointed out. If they
cannot do this, however, we need to move on to alternative techniques.
2.1.1. Showing incorrectness: this can be done in a number of different ways.
Repeating: Here we can ask the student to repeat what they have said, perhaps by saying
Again? Or more polite “would you please repeat that ? ” or another alternative “what”
which coupled with intonation and expression, will indicate that something is not clear.
Echoing: this can be a precise way of pin-pointing an error. We repeat what the student
has said emphasizing the part of the utterance that was wrong,

10

e.g: *Flight 309 GO to Paris? (said with a questioning intonation). It is an extremely
efficient way of showing incorrectness during accuracy work.
Statement and question: we can, of course, simply say That’s not quite right, or
Dopeople think that’s correct? to indicate that something has not quite worked.

than the present perfect. We could say ‘countable’ to make them think about a concord
mistake they have made. Such hints are believed to provide a positive stimulus, and this
kind of promoting almost always gives excellent result. ( Holley and King, 497). However,
this kind of hinting depends upon the students and the teacher sharing linguistic terms
which, when whispered to students, will help them to correct themselves.
Reformulation or Remodeling: an underrated teacher technique is for the teacher to
repeat what the
student has said correctly, reformulating the sentence, but without making a big issue of it,
for example: Student: I would not have arrived late if I heard the alarm clock.
Teacher: If I had heard…
Student : if I had heard the alarm clock.
Many teachers’ corrections of phonological errors are simply brief modeling of
correct pronunciation. In all the procedures above, teachers hope that students will be able
to correct themselves once the teacher has indicated that something was wrong. However,
where students do not know or understand what the problem is the teacher will want to
help the students to get it right.
2.1.2 Getting It Right:
If the student is unable to correct herself, or respond to reformulation, we need to
focus on the correct version in more detail. We can say the correct version emphasising the
part where there is a problem (e.g. Flight 309 GOES to Paris) before saying the sentence
normally (e.g. Flight 309 goes to Paris), or we can say the incorrect part correctly (e.g. Not

12

‘go’. Listen, ‘goes’). If necessary we can explain the grammar (e.g. We say ‘I go’, ‘you
go’, ‘we go’, but for ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘it’ we say ‘goes’, for example ‘He goes to Paris’, or
‘Flight 309 goes to Paris’), or a lexical issue (e.g. We use ‘juvenile crime’ when we talk
about crime committed by children; a ‘childish crime’ is an act that is silly because it’s like
the sort of thing a child would do). We will then ask the student to repeat the utterance
correctly. Sometimes we ask students to correct each other. We might say “Can anyone

Teacher:
I don’t agree
Student:
I don’t agree with you because I think
It is even possible that students can learn something new in this way when they are
making an attempt at some language they are not quite sure of. We can use a number of
other accuracy techniques of showing incorrectness too, such as echoing and expression, or
even say You shouldn’t say X, say Y, etc. But because we do it gently and because we do
not move on to a ‘getting it right’ stage - our intervention is less disruptive than a more
accuracy-based procedure would be.
Over-use of even gentle correction will, however, be counter-productive. By
constantly interrupting the flow of the activity, we may bring it to a standstill. What we
have to judge, therefore, is whether a quick reformulation or prompt may help the
conversation move along without intruding too much or whether, on the contrary, it is not
especially necessary and has the potential to get in the way of the conversation.
Recording Mistakes:
During fluency work we frequently act as observers, watching and listening to
students so that we can give feedback afterwards. Such observation allows us to give good
feedback to our students on how well they have performed, always remembering that we
want to give positive as well as negative feedback. One of the problems of giving feedback
after the event is that it is easy to forget what students have said. Most teachers, therefore,

14

write down points they want to refer to later, and some like to use charts or other forms of
categorization to help them do this, as in the following example:
Grammar
Words and phrases
Pronunciation
Appropriacy

the mistakes since this may expose them in front of their classmates. Indeed, we will
probably want to concentrate most on those mistakes which were made by more than one
person. These can then lead on to quick teaching and re-teaching sequences which arrive
opportunistically in this way . Another possibility is for teachers to write individual notes
to students, recording mistakes they heard from those particular students with suggestions
about where they might look for information about the language in dictionaries, grammar
books
3. The Nature of Beliefs
Studies of many researchers (Shavelson and Stern, 1981; Pajares, 1992;
Kagan,1992; Farrell, 2005, ect) on teacher’s beliefs have proved that beliefs play an
important role in improving teachers’ professional preparation and teaching practices.
However, relatively little attention has been paid to this important area. This may be due,
as Pajares (1992) explains, to the fact that belief does not lend itself easily to investigation
and is difficult to define. In the same vein, Pintrich (1990) states while beliefs have been
described as the most valuable psychological construct to teacher education they are also
one of the more difficult to define. More specifically, Pajares argues that "the difficulty on
studying teachers’ beliefs has been caused by definitional problems, poor
conceptualizations, and differing understandings of beliefs and belief structures" (p.307).
In his review of the research on the topic, Pajares( 1992) refers to beliefs as a
"messy construct", one that has not always been accorded much precision and which
"travels under the alias" of: "attitudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology,
perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit
theories, personal theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice
practical principles, perspectives, repertories of understanding, and social strategy, to name
but a few that can be found in the literature” (p.309).

16

Pajares explains that confusion with the concept centres around the distinction
between knowledge and belief. However, it is not so much that knowledge differs from

work, and many of the problems they encounter, are ill-defined and deeply entangled, and
that beliefs are peculiarly suited for making sense of such contexts. (p.324)
Rust (1994) describes beliefs as socially-constructed representational systems.
These systems then are used to interpret and act upon the world. Since beliefs are generally
contextualized and associated with a particular situation or circumstance (Kagan, 1992), it
is not surprising that systems of beliefs may contradict each other (Ennis, 1994).
Furthermore, wide variance can be found among the systems of beliefs of different
teachers from within a similar group (Bussis, Chittenden, & Armel, 1976). Wehling and
Charters (1969) discuss beliefs in terms of complex organizations consisting of discrete
sets of inter-related concepts. They include beliefs in the category of representations, or
cognitive maps of the external world which serve as mediators for experiencing and
responding to reality. This conception of beliefs fits with the notion of beliefs as personal
knowledge, personal pedagogies and implicit theories.
Munby (1982) also equates implicit theories with teachers' beliefs. Clark and
Peterson (1986) in their review of the literature on teachers’ thought processes, argue that
teachers' theories and beliefs represent a rich store of knowledge. Teachers make sense of
their complex world and respond to it by forming a complex system of personal and
professional knowledge and theories which, as Kagan (1992) describes, are often tacit and
unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms and the material to be taught
For the purposes of this study, that is investigating teacher beliefs in a particular
context and relating to small number of students with specific materials to be taught, the
definition will be built based on some selected elements described in this review of the
nature of beliefs as follow
Beliefs represent teachers' personal knowledge.
Beliefs represent implicit theories.
Beliefs serve as mediators for experiencing and responding to the environment.
Beliefs are often tacit and unconsciously held.

18



with regards to grammar teaching of two experienced teachers of English language in a
primary school in Singapore. Data collection of the study occurred over a period of two
months. Sources of data included one scheduled pre-study interview with each of the two
teachers, two non-participatory observations of the teachers' classes with pre-lesson and
post-lesson interviews, as well as a collection of random samples of their students' written
work. The results show that Daphne, one of the subjects of the study, has a strong sense of
convergence between stated beliefs and actual classroom practices. Having herself
experienced English language learner, learning by explicit instruction on the rules of
grammar; Daphne firmly believes that her students can also benefit from this overt
approach to grammar teaching. Her actual classroom practices of providing explicit
explanations and instructions on grammar items and structures were congruent with her
belief in her "traditional approach to grammar teaching." The result also showed that
Daphne’s case appears to be in conflict with the Johnson's (1999) suggestion that many
language teachers are adamant about not recreating the same type of formal language
learning experiences they had when they were students. Not only was Daphne amenable to
recreating her own learning experience, she was committed to it because of the benefits
that she perceived the approach would hold for her students in the Singapore education
system.
For Velma, the other subject of the study, her beliefs in a more indirect, or covert,
approach to grammar teaching partially matched some her actual classroom practices.
During the pre-study interview, Velma expressed the belief that grammar teaching should
be integrated into speaking, writing and reading. In fact, this was observed during Velma's
Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, where students were actively discussing and writing
poetry and short stories, rather than receiving explicit instruction on adverbs of manner.
Even though it may seem that Velma's beliefs and practices converge, the researcher noted
some divergence also. For example, during Velma's Lesson V1 on adverbs of manner, she
made explicit grammar explanations and the activities were not contextualized into
meaningful communicative situations. In fact, her grammar teaching was not incidental but
structured and prescriptive. In short, Farrell (2005) concluded that teachers do have a set of

of the case study reported in this paper). Thus, the case study presented in this paper is one
attempt to add to the literature on this important topic.
In conclusion, the literature considered in this review reminds us of the significant
perspectives on error correction and techniques in oral error correction which have so far

21

been neglected by teachers as well as the importance of beliefs in understanding the
behind-the-scenes realities of what happens in the classroom. More importantly, the review
provides us with a preliminary perspective on how teachers’ beliefs and their actual
classroom practices interrelate. Many of these studies will no doubt serve as useful points
of comparison and as a means of understanding some of the beliefs in the present study.

22

Chapter III: Methodology of the Study
I. Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at an Upper Secondary School in Bac Giang province.
Most of the teachers in school are novice thus they have not got much experience in
teaching but they are very enthusiastic and creative. The teacher in this study is Ms
Nguyn th Hà (pseudo-name). She is 35 with 9 years teaching experience. She is
considered to be the only and the most experienced teacher in English group in the Upper
Secondary School. She has got a BA degree in the field of Methodology of TEFL of
college of foreign languages (VNU). She is eager to participate in the study and very
helpful in helping the researcher to complete the study.
All students in the school are not major in English. Most of them start studying
English at 10
th
form however there are still few who have four years studying English at
secondary school. In general, students’ knowledge of English is not good and they are also

methodology used is one geared toward the research questions in an attempt to understand
the particular phenomenon which is being studied (Leedy, 2001). As such the study
employed a single case methodology to answer the research questions. The following
paragraphs will describe the rationale for choosing the methodology as well as the
specifics about the methodology that was employed.
2.1. Rationale for Choosing a Qualitative Case Study.
2.1.1. Quantitative vs Qualitative Methodology and Rationale for Choosing
Qualitative Research
In determining the appropriate methodology to use in this research, the first
question that had to be answered was “ is this research qualitative or quantitative in
nature?”. Using Leedy and Ormrod’s ( 2001) table, (see table 1) as a foundation making
this determination, there are five general questions that can be used to determine if the
research is quantitative or qualitative in nature. 24

Table1: Selection of Methodological Approach
Question Quantitative Qualitative
What is the purpose of
the research? What is the nature of the
research process?
Build theory

Holistic
Unknown variables
Flexible guidelines
Emergent design
Context bound
Personal view
Informative, small sample
Observations, interviews
Inductive analysis
Words
Narrative

Personal voice, scientific
style

The first question relates to the purpose of the research. Quantitative research
attempts to explain what is happening and to predict future events based upon testing
theory. The qualitative researcher, instead, attempts to build theory through the exploration
and interpretation of the data. By exploring and interpreting the relationship between the
beliefs and classroom practices of a teacher in an upper secondary school, this study was
an attempt to build theory relating to teacher’s beliefs literature thus it meets the criteria for
qualitative research.
The second question addresses the nature of the research process. Series of actions
of quantitative research are very rigid and exact in nature while qualitative research is more

25

flexible and adaptable. Thus, the researcher can modify the data collection techniques to