Theoretical Framework

The following key concepts and theories served as the basis of our research.

Speaking skills

Focused on teaching EFL/ESL, teachers have four skills to develop in their students:
Reading, Listening, Writing, and Speaking, but in this research the focus is on Oral
production/Speaking. Thornbury (2009) explains that speaking is such a normal and
natural activity in human beings that we have forgotten the difficulties that we
overcame in our childhood to acquire our mother tongue, and in consequence we do not
take into account the fact that in SLA all these difficulties will be present again.

Oral Correction

For this study, a distinction between the terms “mistake” and “error” should be
provided.

For this study, we consider the definitions given by Brown (2000) who defines a
mistake as “a performance error that is either a random guess or a “slip”, in that it is a
failure to utilize a known system correctly” (p. 217) and the speaker has the ability to be
aware of the mistake and correct it if necessary. On the other hand, he states that an
error “is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflects the
competence of the learner [...]. An error reveals a portion of the learner’s competence in
the target language. This means that the error can occur repeatedly, and it is not
corrected by the learner. Thus, errors demonstrate how proficient the student has
become in the L2 and the teacher can distinguish his/her stage on the learning process.

Errors can be described as “the use of a linguistic item in a way, which according to
fluent users of the language indicated faulty or incomplete learning (p. 538). These
definitions illustrate that errors are carried out by an individual whose mother tongue is
different from the L2; therefore, these are caused by the unfamiliarity with the target
language itself.

Chaudron (1977) provides an accurate definition of the concept, he states that

CF “includes any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers
to, or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance” (p. 31). Furthermore, he
emphasizes that the description includes both concepts of implicit and explicit
correction (p. 31) which, as Gass and Selinker (2008) state, feedback can be explicit
when the teacher states directly that an error has been made, or implicit, where the
feedback occurs during the course of interaction (pp. 329 - 330).
Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) established that:
 Corrective feedback takes the form of responses to learner utterances
that contain error. The responses can consist of (a) an indication that an
error has been committed, (b) provision of the correct target language
form, or (c) meta-linguistic information about the nature of the error, or
any combination of these. (p. 340)
Error correction techniques

The types of responses mentioned previously were identified and classified through
observational studies and are part of the framework of CF. The most distinguished
research is the study carried out by Lyster and Ranta (1997), which describes six
different types of CF: Explicit correction, Recast, Clarification Requests, Metalinguistic
Feedback, Elicitation, and Repetition

They also point out that that the aim of oral CF should be for learners to self-correct.
They indicate that Clarification Requests, Metalinguistic Feedback, Elicitation, and
Repetition of the error often lead to student generation repair, in contrast with Explicit
Correction and Recast that never produce student-generated repair.

Accordint to Lyster and Ranta Explicit correction and Recast are more typical for A1
and B1 lessons, the remaining techniques are applied with B2 and C1- C2 students.

Explicit correction: It is clearly stated that what the student has said is incorrect, the
correct form is given by the teacher.

Recast: The teacher does not state directly that an error has occurred. He or she repeats
the complete utterance to the learner in a corrected form.

Clarification request: The teacher indicates that what the learner said is not clear or it
has an error. He/she uses phrases as "Excuse me?" “Can you repeat what you said?”
Metalinguistic feedback: The teacher provides questions, information or comments
related to the learner’s utterance. The correct form is not provided.
Elicitation: The purpose of the teacher is that the student produces the correct form by
practicing one of the following steps: a) pauses the conversation so that students
complete his/her statement; b) asks questions “We form the first conditional with”?
Repetition: The teacher repeats the student's utterance highlighting the error by
changing the intonation.

Error Types
When correcting, it is important to identify the type of error that the student has made.
The study of Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized errors as lexical, grammatical, and
phonological
  Grammatical: Student incorrectly use items such as tense, conjugation, word
order.
 Lexical: Inappropriate use of vocabulary or the switch to L1 language.
 Phonological: Mispronunciation of a word.

Vulnerability

vulnerability is identified as a social condition “of risk, a difficulty that disables

and invalidates in an immediate or future way the satisfaction of their well-being
(subsistence and quality of life) of the affected groups in certain social-historic and
cultural contexts (Perona & Rocchi, 2001).

In Chile, educational vulnerability has been defined by factors such as the risk
faced by students in their possibility of insertion or desertion from school, the
interaction between elements such as family-school-neighborhood-community,
psychological development, physiological development, level of parents’ education,
economic development of the family, conditions of their homes and cases of indigence
declared in Fondo Nacional de Salud.

The Chilean educational system is divided into three categories:

 Municipal Schools or Public Schools financed by the per-student subsidy

granted by the state and run by municipalities (which has more than a
half of the total enrollment);
 Private Subsidized Schools financed by the per-student subsidy and run
by the private sector (around one third of the total enrollment);
 Private Schools fee-paying schools financed by fees paid by parents and
managed by the private sector (has about one tenth of the total
enrollment).

There are many factors that affect the proficiency of vulnerable students in EFL class,
such as the fact that students in public schools easily reach the number of 45 children in
a classroom, a number far superior to those in Private schools; control of discipline
problems becomes the main objective for a teacher instead of the teaching and learning
practice. Considering this large number of students, the practice of a communicational
approach within the classroom seems impossible.
Error correction in context (Theories)
Most teachers tend to focus their attention on the instruction of the subject matter rather
than the correction of spoken errors. The importance of this technique in SLA
classroom has been discussed by numerous linguists and academics in language
teaching. The question is whether it is possible to improve proficiency levels through
corrective feedback.

According to Vygotsky (1996), in his Social cultural theory cognition is fundamentally

a social process, in other words he states that the origin of cognition lies in social
interaction between individuals first on the inter-psychological or social level before it
is changed into the intra-psychological or individual level. According to this, human
cognitive development is concerned with consciousness and self-regulatory
mechanisms.
Vygotsky (1996) states that the fundamental role of the more expert members (tutor)
who offers real-time assessment to the novice (learner) through face to face activities
and dialogues creating an interaction that will help to reduce the distance between what
a learner can do in L2 if assisted by others versus what the learner can achieve by
themselves. This social concept of learning has been defined as collaborative
scaffolding, assisted performance and negotiated corrective feedback.
Vygotsky (1996) used the concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to
characterize this tutor-learner interaction in language learning. This construction zone
where language is appropriated by a novice in cooperation with the tutor, is defined as
“the distance between what a learner can do in the L2 if assisted by others (in joint
activity that is other-regulated or inter-psychological) versus what the student can
accomplish alone (in independent activity that is, hopefully, self-regulated or intra-
psychological)” (Ortega, 2009, p. 224). Thus, the ZPD is seen as a potential for learning
when interaction occurs, given that this interaction opens up possibilities for
development. This theory strongly explains why social interaction plays an important
function in L2 acquisition.
 Regarding Corrective feedback, the ZPD is directly related to error correction.
When teachers correct their students’ errors they are giving their students opportunities
for interaction. In this way, students find opportunities to improve and develop their
language learning in a collaborative way, which in an individual process they would not
be capable to do.

Krashen (2003) claims that SLA is the result of implicit processes operating
together with the reception of comprehensible input. Krashen (2003) concurs on the
idea that the most important source for L2 learning is input. However, this input must be
comprehensible for the learner, that is, slightly above the learner’s level of language
competence, also termed by Krashen (1982) as “i+1”.

According to his theory, “i” represents the learner’s level of language

competence in L2, while “+1” represents the following level to acquire. As a result,
with the help of comprehensible input it is possible for the learner to move from one
level to the other, that is to say they are able to understand its meaning rather than its
form. Krashen (1985) believes that “When L2 learners process these messages for
meaning (which they will most likely do if the content is personally relevant and
provided they can reasonably understand them), grammar learning will naturally occur”
(Ortega, 2009, p. 59).

For that reason, any input which is comprehensible for learners will lead to L2
acquisition. The Input Hypothesis states that fluency of language production emerges
over time and cannot be directly taught by teachers. Since production depends on
learners’ abilities, the only way teachers can assist learners is by providing adequate
input. Although he claims that corrective feedback has a barely discernible effect on
SLA, it affects the learning of the target language. This idea of L2 acquisition is
compared to L1 acquisition, where the interaction between children and caretakers is
mostly based on understanding rather than form, in other words, based on
communication. Krashen’s input hypothesis, where he states that comprehension is
essential for language acquisition, has been challenged by many other linguists who do
not only believe that comprehensible input is necessary but also noticing is
indispensable for the language acquisition process.

However, The Noticing Hypothesis by Richard Schmidt (1990), questioned

the idea of unconscious processes of learning a language. According to his studies,
unconscious learning of a language will not lead the acquisition of a new language
without paying attention to language forms. Noticing is the essential starting point for
acquisition.

As stated by Schmidt (1990) “subliminal language learning is impossible, and

that intake is what learners consciously notice. This requirement of noticing is meant to
apply equally to all aspects of language” (p.149). Language learners have limitations in
what they are capable of noticing. That is why attention becomes the most important
factor. As Schmidt points out, “while the intention to learn is not always crucial to
learning, attention to the material to be learned is” (p.176). In addition, attention also
“controls access to conscious experience” (p.176), hence allows the acquisition of new
items to occur.

Schmidt argues against the notion that learners, by only being exposed to
comprehensible input, would convert this into intake and later on transform it into
output. Learners must not only comprehend the input, they must also notice the
divergence between the input they are exposed to and their own L1 language. In this
way corrective feedback functions as an attention getting device. In other words,
without direct or frequent corrective feedback in the output, which would allow learners
to detect errors and discrepancies between their L1 and L2, fossilization might occur.
The awareness of the error serves the function of prompting a modification of existing
L2 knowledge, in this way corrective feedback plays an important role if the correct
form is provided, learners might have the opportunity to compare their own production
with the correct one. Therefore, the acquisition process includes the steps of noticing,
comparing, and integration.

Finally, Harmer (2007) believes that corrective feedback helps learners to

simplify their understanding of the meaning and construction of the language. He also
claims that teachers should be concerned about to correct their students because one
way may be appropriate for one but maybe would not be appropriate for another. It is
also possible that students can correct themselves as the error is just a slip. Yet again,
students sometimes need help of the teacher. Harmer also claims that during this time
teachers can ask to correct another student. If the other students help out to solve the
error, the student who made the error may not feel humiliated. Sometimes students also
prefer a gentle correction from the teacher. Harmer (2007) also suggests that it is
important to praise students for their success and to correct them for their failure. In this
way teacher's positive attitude can dramatically change students’ performance
irrespective of their level and types of errors.

Except for Krashen’s Input theory All these other authors mentioned support the
idea of feedback as an essential part of language acquisition.

Methodological Framework

3.1 METHODOLOGY

This research was of a qualitative and quantitative nature. Also, it is focused on

some specific cases to make general conclusions, our research takes on an inductive
character. The level of abstraction of knowledge of this investigation is exploratory-
descriptive, this because not many works about the topic of this research have been
done in our country yet, so it is not well known, and we need to collect specific data in
order to reach the main objectives of this research. In addition, we hope this research
might be helpful for teachers and future students.

One of the most important methods in terms of research is the qualitative

method; for us it is important because it helped us to collect information in order to
further interpret it, which helped us to conclude this research. This was achieved with
the compilation of different information and observation of different specific aspects of
our sample such as: opinions, behaviors, and perceptions and preferences of students
and teachers. In addition, the qualitative method was used regarding the data we
obtained from the research and its organization to present the results.

3.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

The universe studied consisted of Chilean students from vulnerable schools, and
teachers of English. The population was students from 9th grade of vulnerable schools in
the city of Santiago, and 9th grade English teachers of vulnerable schools. Finally, it was
a non- probabilistic purposive sampling that considered eighty three students of 9th
grade and three 9th grade English teachers from the following schools: Colegio
Alcántara, Colegio Manuel José Irarrázaval, and Liceo Los Almendros. The different
teachers of English and number of students could be an aspect that affects how the
former corrects students in the EFL classroom.

3.3. INSTRUMENTS

The instruments and strategies used for the data collection were an observational
chart, a survey, and an interview. Each of them covers a specific objective of this
research. Said instruments were validated by three experts from the Faculty of
Humanities of Universidad Mayor: Miquéias Rodrigues, Rocío Knipp, and Angelina
Cáceres.

The first instrument was an observational chart, meant to determine whether oral
correction existed or not in the classroom. It consisted of three main rows describing
type of error (grammatical, pronunciation, lexis), the teacher’s correction technique, and
the moment in which the error is corrected (immediately or after).

The second instrument was a survey for students. It consisted of twenty-three

alternative questions meant to discover the students’ preferences and perspectives when
oral corrections were made in the lesson.

Finally, the interview was for the English teacher, the purpose was to determine
his/ her opinion towards Oral Correction and its techniques. It consisted of ten
established questions that the teacher had to answer orally in no more than twenty
minutes. This instrument had to be answered in a personal and honest way.

3.4 ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY

In our investigation with the aim of protecting the identity of the students that
took part of the research, we did not ask them to write their names in the survey
with the unique purpose of facilitating the understanding of the information, and
to protect the students’ identities.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN

This paper presents, explains and describes the data obtained through the
application of the instruments used, such as observation, interviews, and survey to find
out if there is any type of oral correction within the English vulnerable classroom and
how it is done and perceived by teachers and students.

It was important to analyse the data from our study in order to make sense of
them and to make accessible to the researcher (and people who read the report of the
research) the large amount of data that has been generated. All this allowed us to
organise and interpret this information in order to obtain the necessary information to
answer the research questions stated in the previous chapters:

Limitations and suggestions for further research

According to the data obtained and with the aim of improving Chilean EFL
classrooms, more investigations about this topic, and English teaching in general,
should be carried out. Theory in general should be further reviewed and studied by the
teachers, and more techniques of correction should be implemented in classes.

As further research, it is necessary to take into account the background of the

students related with the English course, such as their expectations, preferred ways of
studying English, previous experiences in EFL classrooms, and so on. Also, in the case
of teachers, it would be useful to consider what tools (IT or not) the teacher could make
use of in order to improve oral correction, and to evaluate how the current ones are
working.

After investigating this topic and given that the object of study in this research
was extensive, we pose some questions which can serve as possible topics for further
research on this area, and which can complement this investigation:

1. How do learners react to correction of pronunciation in Chilean EFL

classrooms?
 Concerning this research study, do teachers reflect on their ways of correcting
learners’ performance in pronunciation?
2. Do teachers have a theoretical base for making decisions when correcting
learners’ pronunciation in ESL/EFL classrooms?
3. How do learners react to correction of pronunciation in Chilean EFL
classrooms?
4. How does pronunciation correction influence learners’ personality, self-esteem,
confidence, motivation, attitude and anxiety in Chilean ESL classrooms?
5. Do teachers consider learners’ perceptions and preferences on pronunciation
correction?