1 Introduction.
1.1 Research Background
Error is inevitable to humans, and a language error can be defined as an unsuccessful bitof language. With the development of language teaching theories, errors are regarded as anatural part of language learning, which is true of the development of a child’s first languageas well as second language learning. When learning a foreign language, error is inevitable,and it has been seen as a positive part in the process of language learning and the reflection oflearner’s stage of inter-language development. Therefore, how do errors occur, how to treat learner’s errors; who to correct learners’ errors; the roles of learners’ errors; and the roles oferror correction have become hot issues in the field of applied linguistics andpsycholinguistics. Some linguists consider that error correction is very important for theimproving learners’ language proficiency, while other researchers hold a skeptical opinionabout the effectiveness of error correction. ‘According to the understanding of languageteaching and learning and the development of teacher approaches, teachers’ and researchers’attitudes towards error correction have changed from the strict avoidance of errors and thenquick and direct error correction before the 1960s, to the condemnation of error correction asharmful and necessary in the late 1960s, and to a more critical view of the need and value oferror correction in the 1970s to 1990s’ (Wu Tong, 2010: 4). It is still controversial on errorcorrection, and this topic remains unsolved up till now. Especially, since late 1960s, with thedevelopments in second language acquisition research and some changes encouraged bycommunicative and humanistic approaches to language teaching, teachers have beenpromoted to intervene less. While, Leo van Lier’s conversation theory also proposes that thecorrective feedback in language learning classroom should be like a harmonious and fluentconversation among participants. The in-classroom correction strategies have significant roleson students’ emotion from psychology aspect. Therefore, many educators and researchersdevoted themselves to exploring efficient in-class error correction strategies.
………..
1.2 Significance and Purpose of This Research
Some educators and researchers insist that when errors occur frequently, especially whenthey are shared by almost all students in class, it is necessary to bring the problem to learners’attention. Some others insist that the way to correct students’ error is a kind of art. Excessivefeedback on errors can have a negative effect on students’ learning motivation. Therefore,many researchers explored the issues such as: who to correct; when to correct and how tocorrect and different error correction strategies in different language learning fields. Forinstance, Krashen (1982), Harmer (1982), Allan (1991), Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1996) aremainly researchers in western countries and their attention is interested in the field of Englishwriting. For Chinese context, the studies on error correction, such as Gui Shichun (1985),Wang Chuming (1990), Dai weidong and Shu Dingfang (1994), pays attention to errorcorrection strategies in spoken English classroom. However, some other educators make greateffort on exploring the relationship between in-class error correction strategies and students’learning attitudes. It’s worth mentioning that most of these researches are based on humanismand behaviorism. What’s more, they regard in-class error correction strategies as a part ofF-move in IRF classroom discourse structure.
…………
2 Literature Review
2.1 Definitions of Major Terms
Before conducting a research related to error correction, it is necessary to know what anerror is in language learning. For a long time, there has not been a unified definition of error.In order to get a clear idea of the definition of errors, different versions made by differentresearchers are presented as follows: a) error was defined as ‘in the speech or writing of asecond or foreign language learner the use of a linguistic item (e.g. a word, a grammaticalitem, a speech act, etc) in a way which a fluent or native speaker of the language regards asshowing faulty or incomplete learning’ (Richard & the Platts: 2000: 99). A distinction issometimes made between an error, which results from incomplete knowledge, and a mistakemade by a learner when writing or speaking and which is caused by lack of attention, fatigue,carelessness, or some other aspect of practice. b) Chaudron (1988: 67) defined ‘error aslinguistic forms or content that differed from native speaker norms or facts, and any otherstrategies signaled by the teacher which needs to improve’. C) According to Cai Shao qin(2009), ‘If language learners use language improperly as a result of wrongly or incompletelylearning, they are considered to have made an error.’
………..
2.2 Theoretical Background
As Ellis (1994: 640) held that classroom discourse usually has a characteristic andidentifiable procedure. Lots of researchers conducted their studies on classroom discoursefrom different aspects. Especially the much-noted IRF exchange which was first noted byBellack et al.(1996) who proposed a four-move framework of Teacher Talk in the classroomlanguage: structure, solicit, respond and react. It is a foundation for the further research inTeacher Talk and applied linguistics. They called it the teaching cycle. Next, Sinclair andCoulthard (1975) made it into the centerpiece of their discourse analysis, calling the basic unitof interaction, or the exchange. The ‘F-move’ refers to the ‘Follow-up’ or ‘Feedback’ moveidentified by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) in their now well-known analysis of classroomdiscourse, as the third move in the I-R-F exchange structure, where ‘I’ represents an initiatingmove, such as a question posed by the teacher, ‘R’ is the response from the class—usuallyfrom an individual student—and ‘F’ is the follow-up comments by the teacher. The teacher’sF-move has a primarily evaluative function: it gives the students feedback about whether theirresponse was acceptable or not, a function that was recognized in the term ‘feedback’, whichSinclair and Coulthard originally used to describe the move. The evaluative role is to providefeedback to individual students about their performance, and in particular, in the languageteaching classroom, to allow learners to confirm, disconfirm and modify their inter-languagerules. The feedback may be an explicit acceptance or rejection of the response (e.g. ‘Good’,‘Excellent’, ‘No’, ‘Nearly’) or some other indication that the response was not acceptable (e.g.repetition of the response with a low rising, questioning intonation).
………….
3 Research Methodology..... 11
3.1 Research Questions .......... 11
3.2 Subjects .... 11
3.2.1 English teachers...... 11
3.2.2 Students .......... 12
3.3 Instruments ....... 12
3.4 Data Collection Procedure ....... 15
3.4.1 The data collection procedure of interview.... 15
3.4.2 The data collection procedure of questionnaires.... 17
4 Findings of the Research and Discussion ....... 18
4.1 Answers to Research Question One ......... 18
4.2 Answers to Research Question Two ........ 22
4.3 Answers to Research Question Three ...... 23
5 Detailed Discussion........... 25
5.1 Discussion of Research Question One ..... 25
5.2 Discussion of Research Question Two..... 27
5.3 Discussion of Research Question Three........... 28
5 Detailed Discussion
5.1 Discussion of Research Question One
In this part, the author mainly explores the answers on the first research question in thisthesis: What is the current situation of in-class error correction strategies in High SchoolEnglish class, nowadays? As we all know, the schools emphasize on the concept of‘student-centered’ in the daily teaching nowadays. Teachers try their best to let studentsengage themselves into the class and let them experience by themselves as much as possible.At present, there is probably nothing that symbolizes classroom discourse quite as much asthis structure, the much-noted IRF exchange. In the real daily classroom, a well preparedquestion which are closed related to the today’s topic is initiated to the whole class by theteacher, then an individual student give his or her response after thinking a while, then theteacher give the feedback or follow-ups on student’s response. Whatever, in most teachers’opinion the aim of the well designed question and students’ response are served for thetoday’s teaching curriculum. Based on this aim, it is clear that teacher only searches for theexpected answer which can server this class, which can elicit today’s teaching content or keypoint, which can help go on the lesson. Therefore, in author’s opinion, the process of IRFexchange classroom structure is ‘induce- match- evaluate’. Especially for the matchingprocess, teacher just cares whether they can find the expected point in students’ response anduse it to server their teaching aims. They don’t care the detailed content of students’ response;they don’t want to explore the reason of students’ ideas; even they don’t try to explore moretopics from students’ response simply it isn’t closely related to today’s teaching curriculum.From this regard, it is clear that the today’s teaching pattern is still satisfied with teachers’teaching objects and the teaching curriculum. Therefore, the nature of the class is still‘teacher-oriented’, the situation and right between teachers and students are still totally unfair.
……….
Conclusion
The research includes fourteen English teachers and 80 Grade One Senior High Schoolstudents. Classroom observation, individual in-depth interview, questionnaire survey areconducted during the whole process of the research. The major findings are summarized asfollowing: It is potentially unequal distribution of rights and duties in talk between teachers andstudents in in-class error correction strategies. Firstly, most in-class error correction isconducted by teachers in a single and inflexible way of pointing out students’ errors, givingthe explicit right corrections directly and repeating it by students. In the error correctionprocess, students’ feelings, willingness and desire are not taken into consideration. Secondly,some teachers still correct students’ errors during students’ speech which disturb theconversation order and violate students’ talk right toughly. In the process of error correction,teachers may performance powerfully and indubitably if they regard themselves as a judge toevaluate each student’s response. The standard of correction, the right answer is in their minds,so, they have the right to deny any different opinions and they may disturb or interveneautomatically. This also causes the serious unequal relationship between teachers and studentsin the class.
..........
Reference (omitted)