RUNNING HEAD : ERROR CORRECTION

Error Correction Techniques in the EFL Class

Rosana Beatriz Zublin

Facultad: Humanidades
Carrera: Licenciatura en Inglés – Ciclo de Licenciatura
- Modalidad a Distancia-
Plan: 2011
2da Cohorte
Professor: Bicoff

1
ERROR CORRECTION

IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURABLE CHALLENGE THAT HAS COME TO AN END.

We all have Possibilities

We don‟t know about.
We can do things
We don‟t even dream
We can do.
Dale Carnegie (1888- 1955, American writer)

2
ERROR CORRECTION

INDEX
DEDICATIONS 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5

ABSTRACT 6

1. INTRODUCTION 7/9

2.1 PART I: LITERARY REVIEW: ERRORS AND MISTAKES 9/10

2.2 WHY DO LEARNERS MAKE ERRORS? 11

2.3. MISTAKES AND ERRORS : DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS 12/14

2.4 THE AFFECTIVE FILTER 14/15

2.5 FEEDBACK 15/18

2.6 ERROR CORRECTION TECHNIQUES 18/22

3. RESEARCH STUDY 23/33

3.1 METHODOLOGY 23/26

3.2 ANALYSIS OF DATA 26/29

3.2.1 PART 2 29/33

4 CONCLUSION 34/35

APPENDIX 36/39

REFERENCES 40/41

3
ERROR CORRECTION

To my dear son, Gerardo Andrés, for his unconditional love and help with technology,
patience and enthusiasm.

To my Mum, who gave me the possibility of falling in love with English.

To my friends Georgia , Carolina, Cecilita , Ma. Albina , Maggie and Alice

To Me

4
ERROR CORRECTION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Atenea Engraf and all the students who were involved in the present work.
Deep gratitude to my cybermate Cintia Shmidt. It needs two to tango and she has proved to
be the perfect partner from the very beginning .
I would like to express special thanks to Lola for reading me.
I am also indebted to the teachers Andrea Insaurralde and Carla Bicoff for their permanent
support and encouraging words.

5
ERROR CORRECTION

Abstract

Errors are regarded as a natural part of the learning process, with the teacher
performing the role of facilitator, providing help when necessary and creating a supportive
environment in which students can obtain a successful enhanced learning outcome. They
are significant indicators of the learning progress showing what learners have attained and
what remains to be acquired and provide the language teacher the necessary information
about how to deal with the problems that may arise and give a meaningful comprehensible
feedback which proves to be beneficial in the long run. Furthermore, the teacher should
guide learners to use the appropriate meta- language needed to communicate ideas and
beliefs about their learning process. In addition, educators should be sensitive and
sympathetic toward the different learning capabilities present in their classes and try to avoid
learners‟ embarrassment and encourage them to take risks using the language. The
influence of learners‟ age, level of proficiency and learning style lead them to react differently
to error correction. In order to prevent students to feel misled and confused, teachers should
avoid over-correction. Teachers should provide a positive affective feedback, reduce the
tension caused by error correction and encourage all their students to improve their works.
Language anxiety may affect students‟ self-esteem, self-confidence, hamper proficiency in
language acquisition, and hinder their achievement. Encouragement and non-threatening
instruction are good ways to ease learner anxiety and strengthen their motivation.

KEYWORDS : errors, mistakes, error correction techniques, affective filter, feedback,

learning process

6
ERROR CORRECTION

“Errors are clues to inner processes, windows into the mind”

Kroll and Schafer (1978:243)

CORRECTION IN THE ENGLISH CLASSROOM

1.INTRODUCTION

Not only is to err human, but there is none other than human error: animals and artefacts do not
commit errors. And if to err and to speak are each uniquely human, then to err at speaking, or to
commit language errors, must mark the very pinnacle of human uniqueness (James 1998:1).

When acquiring a foreign language learners make mistakes assuming that their L1 and
the L2 work in the same way, i.e.: they encounter many problems due to erroneous concepts.
They are the result of faulty deductions of grammar rules, transfer of learning habits in the L1
that do not match with the L2 and a lack of a proper command of the L2. In addition, learners
may also experience various kinds of stressful situations as they have to deal with different
areas of the L2, such as grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary.

In order to avoid learners‟ embarrassment and inhibition that my result in their

discouragement to respond to the teacher‟s input, errors should be regarded as a natural
part of the learning process, as a meaningful learning tool and not as an obstacle that may
impede a successful learning experience. Kroll and Schafer (1978) refer to errors as
manifestations of the learner‟s latent linguistic and cognitive procedures.

According to Corder (1967:167)

A learner‟s errors are significant in three different ways. First to the teacher, in that they tell him
how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and, consequently, what still remains to be
learned. Second, they provide the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what
strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Thirdly, they are
indispensable to the learner himself /herself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device
the learner uses in order to learn.

There are different types of correction techniques the students may get acquainted with
throughout their learning process: self-correction, peer correction, group correction and
teacher correction. The teacher should choose the one/s that best suit the specific learning
situation. More often than not, students‟ affective filter is high, which makes them oblivious to
repairing feedback and thus shelter under a negative attitude that impedes language
acquisition problems to be solved.

7
ERROR CORRECTION

The classroom atmosphere should be friendly and cooperative in order to prevent

learners‟ negative anxiety, hindrance and increase their self- reliance. The affective impact
of error correction on learners depends on their level of proficiency and level of anxiety- the
higher, the more negative the impact on the language acquisition process. In other words,
aiming to diminish the tension provoked by error correction, positive and constructive
comments should be provided to encourage learners to become risk- takers.

Krashen (2009:66) argues that “ Methods and materials should not be a test of the
student‟s abilities, should not merely reveal weaknesses, but should help the student to
acquire more”. Hence, students may not be „on the defensive‟ and may attempt to
communicate without fear of making faulty productions. For example, elicitation and
repetition are techniques the teacher uses during the learner‟s oral production when he/she
expects a more complete answer from the latter or repeats the student‟s idea so that he/she
can realise that something has to be reframed. When correcting the written work the teacher
may focus on a certain grammar point, for instance present simple tense, narrowing the
scope of the different types of mistakes. Therefore, the teacher may help the learner to
concentrate on that specific grammar point and may have more time to evaluate the errors
made and the learner is corrected privately,without experimenting the annoyance and
embarrassment of being corrected in front of the whole group.

Referring to the expected teacher‟s feedback , Long (as cited in Brown, 2001: 290) also
points out the importance of considering errors and mistakes positively stating that

At the moment of providing corrective feedback, the teacher should recognise the importance
of the error to the current pedagogical focus on the lesson, the teacher‟s perception of the chance of
eliciting correct performance from the student if negative feedback is given, and so on. Teacher
classroom feedback to students should give them the message that mistakes are not „bad‟ but that
most mistakes are good indicators that innate acquisition abilities are alive and well. Mistakes are
often indicators of aspects of the new language that are still developing.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that, no matter how well intentioned the teacher‟s
feedback may be, if the student rejects the idea of being corrected, it will not be effective at
all. In other words, the teacher will succeed in his/her attempt to correct his/her student only
if the latter is open minded to acknowledge his/her weaknesses and accepts the feedback
provided.

Due to the importance of repair and improvement of error in the English class, the
present case study tries to show which type of error correction technique is more effective,
how the affective factor influences students at the moment of receiving feedback from their
peers and whether age plays a role in shaping learners‟ opinion about the different error
correction techniques as they grow older. The information was obtained from a survey

8
ERROR CORRECTION

carried out about which error correction technique the students thought more beneficial for
their learning process at a semi-public secondary institute.

2.1 PART I: LITERARY REVIEW: ERRORS AND MISTAKES

Previous research into teacher and learner preferences either in written or speaking
tasks, supported the idea that not all errors should be corrected. Different teaching methods
hold different positions about this topic. As Brown (2001) states the Audiolingual Method
makes a great effort to get students to produce free error utterances; the Natural Approach
focuses on meaning , not on form, so error correction is banished, unless they are global
errors- errors that really impede understanding- and the Communicative Approach sustains
the concept that language is often created by the individual through trial and error.

Errors and mistakes play a vital role during the learning process of a language,
widening students‟ knowledge scope and becoming a learning opportunity which in turn may
help them reach autonomy. Brown (2001) claims that the learner‟s mother tongue exerts a
great influence at the moment of acquiring a foreign language. In an attempt to use the new
language his/her errors are the result of the wrong belief that both languages have the same
system of rules. Referring to the same concept Krashen (2009:27) expresses that “ The use
of an L1 rule allows the performer to „outperform‟ his competence, to meet a practical need
in L2 communication”. When the L1 rule used is equal to the one in the L2 -„positive
transfer‟- for instance, passive voice rule, the performer seems to have something for free.
Even if the rule is not the same as the L2 rule, one could discern that the performer still
comes out ahead as quite often, he can still communicate his point regardless of the
inaccurate form, for example, adjectives in Spanish are either singular or plural depending
on the noun, whereas in English they are never pluralized.

Teachers are expected to correct errors that affect understanding, i.e.: errors that
interfere with the general meaning and accuracy of utterances. They may be also uncertain
about what and how to correct students‟ errors and whether immediate or late correction is
suitable. Awareness of the mistakes/errors made and early correction prevent them from
being fossilized.

Hendrickson (1978) designed some questions in an attempt to explain how to deal

with errors in the learning process: Who is expected to correct the learner i.e.: the teacher,
the learner, or the peers? How should corrective feedback be provided? The techniques to
be used depend on whether the student is being corrected in an oral or written activity.

9
ERROR CORRECTION

When is feedback expected to be given? In the case of an oral task it is convenient not to
interrupt the learner with corrections as he/she may find himself/herself in an embarrassing
ackward situation and stop communicating. When the written production is overcorrected
the student may feel demotivated and bewildered without knowing how to redo the work.
What is going to be corrected? In a written task, the teacher should make it explicit which
teaching point is going to be corrected, so the student may understand more easily the
correction provided; while during an oral production, correction should happen only when the
ideas are not clearly conveyed and the meaning cannot be grasped.

Long (1977) introduced the concept of error detection or knowledge of result

according to which teachers are concerned with error detection, and is regarded as the
previous stage to teacher‟s feedback.

Kathleen Bailey (as cited in Brown, 2001: 291) recommends the following taxonomy
to deal with error treatment. The selection and use of a combination of any option and a
suitable possible feature depends on the group of students and the different moments of the
teaching situation:

Basic Options
1- To treat or to ignore
2- To treat immediately or to delay
3- To transfer treatment (to say, to other learners) or not
4- To transfer to another individual, a subgroup, or the whole class
5- To return, or not, to the original error maker after treatment
6- To permit other learners to trigger treatment
7- To test for the efficacy of the treatment

Possible Features
1- Fact of error indicated
2- Location indicated
3- Opportunity for new attempt given
4- Model provided
5- Error type indicted
6- Remedy indicated
7- Improvement indicated
8- Praise indicated

10
ERROR CORRECTION

2.2 WHY DO LEARNERS MAKE ERRORS?

According to Brown (2001:66)

The native language of learners exerts a strong influence on the acquisition of the target
language system. While that native system will exercise both facilitating and interfering effects on the
production and comprehension of the new language, the interfering effects are likely to be the most
salient. Learner‟s errors give signals of an underlying system at work. Errors are, in fact, windows to a
learner‟s internalized understanding of the second language, and therefore they give teachers
something observable to react on. Errors of the native language interference may be repaired by
acquainting the learner with the native language cause of the error.

In the view of Brown (2001:67) “Second language learners tend to go through a

systematic or quasi-systematic developmental process as they progress to full competence
in the target language. Successful interlanguage development is partially a result of utilizing
feedback from others”.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning (2004:155)

states that

Errors are due to an interlanguage, a simplified or distorted representation of the target

language. Learners unconsciously process, analyse and reorganize their interlanguage, so it is
not fixed because it develops and progresses as they learn more.

In other words, errors occur when the student, in an effort to use the target language,
tries to employ rules from his L1 to the L2- the correct use/ form of a target item does not
reflect the speaker/writer‟s skilful use of the language. They are made only by the learners of
the L2 and not by the native speakers. In this way error correction helps learners to become
aware of the existing gap between both languages.

Errors are constant and usually show that learners are learning and that their internal
mental processes are working on and experimenting with the L2. They provide researchers
corroboration of how learners learn and acquire the language, as well as what strategies or
proceedings they use in their finding of the target language.

11
ERROR CORRECTION

2.3. MISTAKES AND ERRORS : DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Mistakes are the result of the writer/speaker‟s tiredness and stress. Although the correct
use/form of a target item belongs to the learners‟ competence, mistakes are observable and
acknowledged and the learners may make use of the self-correction technique. Mc Arthur
(1992:381-383) states that “mistakes are a misapprehension of meaning or a fault in
execution”. Accordingly, he provides the following classification of mistakes:
Competence mistakes (sometimes technically called errors), that arise from ignorance of
or ineptness in using a language, and performance mistakes (technically, mistakes), where
one knows what to say or write but through tiredness, emotion, nervousness, or some other
pressure makes a slip of the tongue, leaves out a word, or mistype a letter.

Common mistakes

his/he‟s CONFUSABLE MISTAKES: two or more words that are easily

once/one‟s confused with one another

lives/leaves
prize/price

their/there HOMOPHONY: words with the same sounds but with different

its/ it‟s spelling and meanings

CATACHRESIS: mistaken use of a word for another, for example:acknowledge/ recognise

CONSONANTAL BLEND: as Spanish does not have consonantal clusters beginning with s ,
learners tend to use an „intrusive‟ e to make words sound more familiar, for instance
estudent for student.
DEVELOPMENTAL ERRORS: where L1 and English come into contact with each other,
there are often misunderstandings which provoke errors in a learner´s use of English either
at the level of sounds, at the level of grammar, or at the level of word usage. They occur
when learners attempt to build up hypothesis about the target language on the basis of

12
ERROR CORRECTION

limited experiences.These errors are part of the natural learning attainment process, i.e.: as
Harmer (2010:96) states that

They occur naturally as the students‟ language develops and are the result of the students
making apparently sensible (but mistaken) assumptions about the way the language works. (…) By
working out when and why things have gone wrong, students learn more about the language they are
learning.

INDUCED OR HYPERCORRECTED ERRORS: errors happen as the result of low-level

teaching classroom resources/ materials or the teachers themselves - it sometimes happens
that teachers are not as qualified as they should be.

OVERGENERALIZATION ERRORS: unfitting use of grammatical principles for certain parts

of the language to formulate a new target language. Generally these errors are likely to
disappear as learners‟ language skills evolve.

According to Spratt, Pulverness and Williams (2005:45) “Fossilized errors are errors
which a learner does not stop making and which last for a long time, even for ever, in his/her
foreign language use”. In other words, learners continue making them and are unable to
correct them, no matter how hard they attempt to avoid them.

Referring to Hendrickson‟s distinction between „global‟ and „local‟ errors, Krashen

(2009) states that teachers should correct those faulty attempts using the foreign language
that really represent an obstacle to its understanding, the so called global errors, for instance,
verb inflections- whereas when a „local‟ mistake is made, such as word order, if the message
is understood, correction should be given afterwards; otherwise the message can be
misinterpreted. Harmerly (1991) presents a similar distinction and states that „surface errors‟
need lesser corrections, whereas „deep errors‟ do require the reasons of why they are made
and what the accurate form is.

Edge (1989) refers to errors as slips when the learner recognises the mistake he/she
has made and can correct it; she speaks of errors when the learner is unable to correct on
his own and requires the teacher‟s intervention. Lastly, Edge uses the term attempts to
explain the errors made when the command of the target language is still out of the learner‟s
learning scope.

Norrish (1983:8-127-128) establishes a similar distinction to the above given between

an error –“a systematic deviation from the accepted code”- a mistake –“a non- systematic
deviation from the language code indicating incomplete learning”- and a lapse – “a non-
systematic deviation from the language code due to human limitations such as fatigue, poor
memory, etc.”.The following is a list of the errors most commonly made:

13
ERROR CORRECTION

Grammatical: a) VerbTense
b) Word order
c) Omission of article
d) Subject-Verb Agreement
e) Pluralized adjectives

Phonology: a) Pronunciation
b) Intonation
c) Word stress
d) Sentence stress
e) Syllable omission

Semantic: a) Incorrect use of word collocation

b) Incorrect use of function

2.4 THE AFFECTIVE FILTER

The affective filter is a mental block that prevents acquirers from fully utilizing the
comprehensible input they receive for language acquisition. (Krashen1985:4)
Any effective feedback should take into account the students‟ psycho-affective
reactions as affect and teacher‟s rapport play a role in shaping learners‟ attitudes to error
correction- the affective feedback implies the affective relationship among participants-
teacher and students alike- which brings about a low affective filter. Language anxiety may
affect students‟ self-esteem, self-confidence and can be an obstacle to proficiency in
language acquisition.

Krashen (2009:74-75) also states that

The most serious flaw in error correction is its effect on the Affective Filter. Error correction
has the immediate effect of putting the student on the defensive. It encourages a strategy in which the
student will try to avoid mistakes, avoid difficult constructions, focus less on meaning and more on
form.

This author (2009) points out that both the absence of a silent period / wait-time,
during which the learner can think over his / her ideas before speaking, and a too early
correction prevent the lowering of the Affective Filter. Corder (1973) stated that once
learners are conscious of their mistaken productions and are given time to elaborate their
corrections and reformulate their utterances, they may benefit more from self-correcting than
by receiving teacher‟s correction.

14
ERROR CORRECTION

Encouragement and non-threatening instruction are necessary to ease learners‟

anxiety and enhance their interest. The affective filter functions as a barrier to the language
acquisition, the higher it is, the more difficult it is for the learners to surpass their learning
weaknesses and the less input is absorbed and processed.

Teachers must remember that the aim of correction is to help students overpass their
difficulties and equip them with the necessary tools to advance in their learning process,
avoiding learners‟ annoyance which may result in a prospective failure in the flow of
communication or in their written productions. So, teachers should not insist on accuracy at
the beginning of the acquisition process. Otherwise, the weak learners would be on the alert
and have a high affective barrier accompanied with its sense of frustration.
For the best students the affective impact of error correction can have a positive
effect, whereas the lower achievers frequently need to be released from viewing errors as a
form of failure, in other words, criticism should not weaken learners‟ self- esteem. Krashen
(1985:76) argues that “Improvement will come without error correction, and may even come
rapidly, since the input will „get in´, the filter will be lower, and the students will be off the
defensive”.
Brown (2001:61) states that “… all second language learners need to be treated with
affective tender loving care” and strengthens the Language Ego Principle saying that

As human beings learn to use a second language, they also develop a new mode of thinking,
feeling, and acting- a second identity. The new “language ego”, intertwined with the second language,
can easily create within the learner a sense of fragility, a defensiveness, and a rising of inhibitions.

2.5 FEEDBACK

Feedback may be defined as the information provided to learners concerning their

performance either by the teacher or peers, aiming at bettering their knowledge of the target
language. It is intended to motivate learners and help them become aware of their problems
and improve them. The provision of corrective feedback can speed up the process of
language learning by giving information about the rules and limits of the language use.

The effectiveness and usefulness of corrective feedback imply both correcting

students and offering them an assessment of how well they have performed, and a tolerant
and positive attitude to errors on the part of the teacher. Positive affective comments should
be offered to encourage learners and reduce the tensions caused by error correction,

15
ERROR CORRECTION

avoiding the risk of demoralizing students who can be tied to their own limitations and
attitudes as regards accuracy and errors.
Teachers should give not only a selective correction, bearing in mind the learners‟
level of proficiency in the foreign language, the kinds of errors made, and the learners‟
attitude toward error correction, but also a supportive attitude to their learners, encouraging
them to get over their fears and insecurities and fostering their self-confidence. A
comprehensible and timely feedback should be provided in a safe and relaxed learning
atmosphere so that learners can reach a low affective filter and acquire the language
successfully.

As Harmer states (2001:105) “Correction is a highly personal business and draws,

more than many other classroom interactions, on the rapport between teacher and students”.
Teachers should provide a fair cognitive feedback in order to be effective. On one hand, too
much positive cognitive feedback may imply understanding when this might not have
happened. The outcome is the lack of awareness of the errors made and their resulting
fossilization; on the other hand, if the teacher focuses all his/her attention on the learners‟
errors, the correct utterances in the L2 may be neglected. In oral activities, permanent
interruptions and correction should be avoided so as to prevent interfering with the natural
flow of communication.

As regards correcting written work, Chastain (1971) argues that over-correction

obstructs learners from focusing on the task and may even spoil the amusement of learning
the target language. Valette (1973) adds that due to over- correction students produce
unsophisticated, plain sentences. Teachers can prevent this embarrassing situation by
telling the students which mistakes are going to be taken into account in a particular task,
such as punctuation, spelling, or grammar. In this way the students focus on certain
mistakes narrowing the scope of correction. Teachers may give their students a list of
correction written symbols, for example, Sp. for spelling, Gr. for grammar. So, when teachers
come across a mistake, they underline it and write the corresponding symbol on the margin
and the students can correct themselves with the aid of the list.(See Appendix for an error
correction key list)

Vigil and Oller‟s traffic lights model ( as cited in Brown, 2001:289) aims to explain how the
flow of communication may be affected at the moment of providing and receiving affective
and cognitive feedback – it refers to the way teachers support their students and help them
to take away fear of making mistakes when they are trying to communicate and how the
teachers convey the idea that the message is being understood or not.

16
ERROR CORRECTION

A „green light‟ means that the speaker-learner is allowed to continue trying to transmit
the message because the general idea can be grasped, so no corrective feedback is needed;
a„red light‟ tells the sender to void his/her message, to make up his / her mind and think of
another alternative for the message; it implies corrective feedback. In between, a`yellow
light´ calls the learner‟s attention indicating him/her to make some changes in his/her
production in order to attain an accurate outcome. Unless there is a balance of „lights‟,
fossilized errors may occur ,i.e.: too much „green‟ light given to understanding when the
message has not been really understood and too much negative feedback may inhibit the
learner in his/her attempts to use the language, rise his/her affective filter and impede any
other possible endeavor.

As the speakers perceive „positive‟ reinforcement (the green lights), they will be led to
internalize certain speech patterns. Because ignoring erroneous behaviour also has the
effect of positive support, teachers must be careful to discern the possible consequences of
neutral feedback- the learner may infer that what he/she has said is right when actually it is
not. It is also advisable to preclude the administration of corrective reinforcement- correction
viewed by learners as devaluing, dehumanizing, or insulting them.

Lyster and Ranta (1997:40) combined different types of error treatment or correction
feedback with students‟ responses to that feedback, or „learner uptake‟. They described six
main corrective „moves‟- a move consisting of the teacher‟s action and reaction:

Explicit correction: it is used to indicate that the student´s production was incorrect, with the
teacher providing the correct form.

Recast/ Rephrase: the teacher implicitly reformulates the learner‟s wrong utterance except the
error or gives the correct structure without openly referring to the learner‟s faulty utterance. Recasts
include scaffolding help, i.e.: it is a way of backing the learner to attain a certain level of proficiency

17
ERROR CORRECTION

and the corresponding autonomy, with the teacher gradually stepping aside. They are unobtrusive
and do not interfere with the flow of communication.

Clarification request: phrases like „Excuse me‟ or „I don‟t understand‟ are used to show
bewilderment on the part of the teacher because the message has not been understood and a
repetition and/ or reformulation is required.

Metalinguistic clues: without providing the correct form, the teacher poses questions or makes
comments related to the student‟s utterance, such as „Do we say it like that?‟

Elicitation: the teacher directly elicits the correct form from the students. Elicitation questions
require more than a Yes/No answer, for example „How do we say this in English?‟

Repetition: the teacher repeats the student‟s error and adjusts the intonation to draw the
learner‟s attention to it.

Levinson (1983:339-341) definesa repair as “An alteration that is suggested or made

by a speaker, the addressee, or audience in order to correct or clarify a previous
conversational contribution”. In other words, the repair begets a problem to the student‟s
production. A repair organization is made of three basic parts: the generation of the problem;
the beginning of the repair, and its completeness. Four kinds of repairs can be discriminated
during a verbal intercourse: 1) the student initiates and completes the repair, i.e.: the trouble-
source maker begins and finishes the repair- he/she can self-correct ; 2) the teacher begins
the repair and the learner completes it, i.e.: the addressee recognizes the origin of the
difficulty and begins the repair with the producer of the trouble-source finishing it; 3) the
learner begins the repair and the interlocutor finishes it: the trouble-source maker begins the
repair; the addressee carries it through; 4) the repair is both begun and finished by another
person, i.e.:both the trouble-source identification and the completion of the repair is
accomplished by the addressee”.

2.6 ERROR CORRECTION TECHNIQUES

Referring to the different techniques to be used at the moment of providing correction,

Spratt, Pulverness & Williams (2005:153) state that

In the classroom, we use a mix of teacher correction, peer correction and self-correction.
Sometimes we need to correct learners. Sometimes we indicate to them that there is a mistake
and they are able to correct themselves or other learners can help them. Sometimes we ignore
learners‟ mistakes. We choose what is appropriate for the learning purpose, the learner and the
situation.

18
ERROR CORRECTION

Dealing with the concept of how learners manage to achieve their learning
independence Brown (2001:43) says that “ Students are given the opportunities to focus on
their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and
through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning”.

If error correction is intended to be meaningful, a combination of the different types of

error correction techniques- self, peer, group and teacher correction- ensures that the
teacher has the possibility of pointing out problems with the language, and that the learners
may be able to build confidence and responsibility for their own learning.

Self- Correction

Tell me and I‟ll forget.

Show me and I may remember.
Involve me, and I‟ll learn.
Benjamin Franklin

Brown (2001:45) says that for Communicative Language Teaching/ Communicative

Approach “Language is often created by the individual through trial and error”. Self-
correction is a visible behaviour from which teachers can grasp their students‟ engagement
and commitment in the use of learning strategies that help them get over the awkwardness
they encounter throughout their learning process.

In this type of correction the classroom dynamic shifts from teacher-centred to

student-centred, i.e.: learners become active participants, experiencing an autonomous role
in their learning process. Once students know how to work on their own, grammar books
with answer keys are the ideal handy companions to foster learner independence.

Edge (1993:10) states that “People usually prefer to put their errors right than be
corrected by someone else. Also, self- correction is easier to remember, because someone
has put something right in his or her own head”. Accordingly, the teaching/learning situation
is essential to promote learner autonomy in such a way that learners may become fully
aware of their achievements and faulty results.

Sultana (2009:11) also points out that “The idea of self-correction is closely tied with
learner autonomy. … Self-correction is the technique which engages students to correct their
own errors”.

Forbes, Poparad & Mc Bride (2012:570) state “Teachers who observe, encourage,
and teach self-correcting behaviours create opportunities in their classroom for their students

19
ERROR CORRECTION

to develop effective [learning] processes”. These authors also express (2004:567) that “self-
monitoring and self-correction are strategic processes that may lead to metacognition”. In
other words, students would be capable of deciding when, which and how to deal with the
strategies they need to correct their works and this attitude in turn, would help them
understand the target language better.

Referring to how learners manage to achieve their learning independence, Brown

(2001:43) expresses that “Students are given the opportunities to focus on their own learning
process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the
development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning”.

Bhattacharya and Chauhan (2012:24) define independence or learner autonomy as a

“capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action”. When
correcting their own productions, students feel a sense of achievement and
acknowledgement of their faulty works. Autonomous learning, according to Holec (in
Gardner 2000:50) is “the ability to take charge of one‟s learning”.

“… Independent learners are more likely to succeed in their studies than those students who
are heavily dependent on the teacher”. (ESOL Examination, 2012:24)

To err is human,
to self- correct is to learn.
The Reading Teacher, 2004:566

Peer Correction

The Communicative Language Teaching and Learner-centred Teaching has brought

about students‟ active participation in language learning. Peer correction has gained
popularity among learners and has been remarkably valued as a learning tool in educational
environments. Peer correction provides the ground for the enhancement of learner
autonomy and participation, inter alia. Its affective advantage over teacher correction is that
it is less threatening, less authoritarian, and more supportive- when correction comes from
the teacher, it stresses teacher‟s authority.

This technique fosters learner independence, is student-centred and implies active

student involvement in the learning process. It may also raise learners‟ awareness of their
strengths and weaknesses. Consequently, it changes the traditional teaching classroom

20
ERROR CORRECTION

situation from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred one, reducing learners‟ anxiety and

increasing their confidence.

In order to correct themselves successfully, learners should have the necessary

linguistic knowledge that would enable them to be conscious of their learning difficulties and
how to overcome them. Teachers who support the suitability of this technique should
familiarize their students with classroom opportunities to develop a meaningful effective
learning process. In this way, teachers gradually become facilitators and students
themselves active participants and risk-takers in making and correcting their own errors.

Though peer correction is valued mainly for its cognitive, social and affective value,
some students may be unwilling to correct their mates‟ errors as it might affect their
relationship because the corrected student might feel that he/she is being inferior to his/her
peers. It may even deprive the students of the possibility to correct the errors themselves
and they might prefer to be gently corrected by the teacher.

It is worth pointing out that this technique works well in classes with a friendly,
supportive and cooperative atmosphere that aims to avoid underestimating learners‟ self-
esteem.

Group Correction

As well as with peer correction, students should be used to taking responsibility for
the language they produce, otherwise, if they are teacher dependent they might become
hesitant speakers unsure of their abilities, and experiment inhibition and a negative attitude
toward learning. The difference between both techniques lays in the number of students
working together: peer correction implies small subgroups within the whole group.

Using this technique students make different comments from those of the teacher
and get more self-confident. They can be effective at monitoring and judging their mates‟
language production. Students doing correction, with the teacher only guiding and assessing
them when necessary, strengthen their attitude toward self-correction. Collaborative effort in
the group interaction fosters language learning and student participation is regarded as an
important tool in any error correction attempt leading learners toward self-correction and an
autonomous behaviour.

In order to familiarize learners with this technique the teacher may hand in a
photocopy from a coursebook/ grammar book that contains a mistake- either a printing
mistake, a punctuation mistake, a spelling mistake or even a concept mistake. In groups, the
students have to find out and correct the mistake, and explain it. They may also provide their

21
ERROR CORRECTION

own examples. The following is a printing mistake found in a grammar book: water and time
are uncountable nouns.

New Grammar Practice for Pre-Intermediate Students-

Walker and Elsworth (2000:17)

Teacher correction

Harmer (2004:59) provides the following definition regarding teacher correction

One of the things that students expect from their teachers is an indication of whether or not
they are getting their English right. This is where we have to act as an assessor, offering feedback
and correction and grading students in various ways.

It is important for students to feel that their needs are being taken into account by
their teacher who is interested in their progress, and that they are given the possibility to
understand the correction done. Not only do students want their errors to be corrected by the
teacher, but they also prefer such correction to be comprehensive rather than selective.
Using positive feedback the teacher can help his/her students to build up their self-
confidence and realize the differences between their L1 and the target language.

Teachers should provide either explicit or implicit correction depending on the class
activities- the former is a detailed direct correction whereas the latter is an indirect one and
means that teachers indicate the presence of errors and facilitate some sort of clues aiming
at peer or self-correction.

22
ERROR CORRECTION

3. RESEARCH STUDY

3.1 METHODOLOGY

This is a twofold work: Part 1: a survey was done by 108 students from a semi-public
secondary institute- público de gestión privada- in the city of Viedma,Río Negro Province,
where they had to answer which method of correction they preferred. This same survey was
given to the same group in two consecutive years in order to see if the participant‟s age had
any effect on error correction preference. The survey is attached in the Appendix. Part 2:
various activities were performed by the students, where different error correction techniques
were used in order to see how they reacted to each.

3.1.1 Instrument

A qualitative research was carried out through a survey in 2013. It was based on a
single close question about how each error correction technique was valued according to the
students‟ experience: Peer- correction, Self correction, Group correction and Teacher
correction as Very Good, Good, Fair, Bad, or Never Done respectively. (See Appendix)

3.1.2 Part 1: Procedure

Two teachers were involved in the present work- one was in charge of three courses
and the other of four courses respectively. They told each group of students from 1st to 5th
year what they were expected to do and explained briefly what each technique consisted of.
The students were also told that the survey was anonymous and in order to prevent
misunderstandings, the information was given in Spanish.Each student had to copy the chart
from the board and complete it according to their preferences for each error correction
technique. Then the teacher gathered all the surveys and classified the learners‟ judgement
for each type of error correction technique.

Graph showing students‟ evaluation/perception of error correction techniques from 1st year to
5th year.

Year 2013

23
ERROR CORRECTION

80

70

60

50 Very Good

40 Good
Fair
30
Bad
20 Never Done

10

0
Peer Group Self Correction Teacher
Correction Correction Correction

Peer Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

12%

36%

30%

6%
16%

24
ERROR CORRECTION

Group Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

17%
29%
5%

17%

32%

Self Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

9% 11%

23%

45%
12%

25
ERROR CORRECTION

Teacher Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

1% 0%
5%

27%

67%

3.2 Analysis of Data

As the graphs show, the majority of the students, with 67%, preferred teacher
correction, followed by peer correction, with 36% and group correction with 29%. Self-
correction had the lowest preference with only 9% of students rating it as very good.

When asked if making mistakes was beneficial or not, some learners expressed that
they learned through errors. They regarded their deviant productions as learning tools which
also helped them become more active participants in their learning process. Even though
group correction ranked in the third place, some students felt in an awkward position as not
all of them took part in the correction activity or did not make the corrections properly.

The great majority of the learners believed that teacher correction was the most
beneficial one as they considered the teacher the one who `knows´. But they also pointed
out that sometimes teachers lack the knowledge needed because they do not have the
appropriate required teacher training skills.

In order to know whether age is an important factor to be considered at the moment

of checking if learners change their ranking of the error correction techniques from one year
to the next, the same group of students that in 2013 was attending 3rd year, in 2014 took part
of an activity and evaluated the different error correction techniques once again.

26
ERROR CORRECTION

4th Year 2014

14

12

10
Very Good
8 Good
Fair
6
Bad

4 Never Done

0
Self Peer Group Teacher

Teacher Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done
0%
0% 0%

28%

72%

27
ERROR CORRECTION

Peer Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

6%
11% 28%

22%

33%

Group Correction
Very Good Good Fair Bad Never Done

0%
0%

22%
39%

39%

Students were revising tenses- present and past- and had to complete some
sentences either with present perfect simple or simple past. They worked and practiced the
different error correction techniques.

The majority of the learners, with 72%, valued teacher correction technique as Very
Good. 56% considered self-correction technique as Good. Group correction occupied the
3rd place with 39% that valued it as Very Good and peer correction closed the survey with 33%
ranking it as Good.

28
ERROR CORRECTION

As regards peer correction technique, they did not feel at ease with this type of
correction because they rejected the idea of being corrected by their equals. Some even
complained saying “My mate has no authority to correct me” or “I do not think that I am being
corrected correctly”. Last year students did not dislike the idea of Peer correction as they did
this year. Most of them preferred teacher correction technique followed by group correction
technique -the former was regarded as the most reliable one.Their option for self-correction
technique changed with the course of time, i.e.: it changed from 9% of acceptance to 56%,
which means that as they grew older they became more self-confident and capable of
recognising and correcting their erroneous work.

3.2.1 Part 2

The following are some of the activities carried out by the different groups of
students using different error correction techniques-not all of them had the experience of
applying the different error correction techniques before.

A) A group of students from 1st B year was preparing for a written test on Present
Simple Tense. They were suggested to practice using the educational site
agendaweb.org. They could check the exercises, thus self-correction technique
was put into practice. The class before the test the teacher wrote sentences with
mistakes about Present Simple of to Be on the board, and a group correction
technique was performed successfully, with students really involved in their
learning process- the sentences were provided by a girl who studied practicing with
the above mentioned page and who could not understand the mistakes she had
made.

B) The teacher brought to a group from 1st A a set of pictures to practice speaking and
writing activities. Students worked in pairs and each pair chose randomly a card.
They had to speak about the chosen picture and then write about it. After both
activities were finished, the teacher collected the pieces of writing and distributed
to a different pair of students who had to correct their mates‟ written production. At
the end of the day, there was a group activity reflecting upon each error correction
technique that had been used.

C) The following productions include some of the moves mentioned in 2.5

FEEDBACK. They were done by students attending 2nd year . They had to give an
oral assignment explaining some units from their coursebook. The teacher took
down notes and once they had finished with the exposition she gave each of them
the corresponding feedback, first to the group and then individually.

29
ERROR CORRECTION

S: Because she like it.

T: Because she likes it? With raising intonation, teacher‟s repair/ rephrase
S: Because she likes it. Student‟s uptake/recast

S: … depend the ending

T: Depending on… The teacher begins the repair and the learner finishes it
S: Yes, depending on the verb ending

S1: He isn‟t play tennis.

S2: The “s” is missing.
S1: No, because you‟ve got “isn‟t”.

None of the students was sure about the rule for the Present Continuous – to be+ -
ing
S: … and is used when comparing similar ideas.
T: Comparing or joining?
The student did not answer.

S (speaking about clothes): To use a hat

T: In Spanish we have the verb usar for clothes and for objects as well, e g: Uso la
computadora / I use the computer; uso un vestido / I wear a dress, whereas in English there
are two verbs, to wear for clothes and to use for objects - this type of error has to do with a
faulty cross- association between the L1 and the target language.

D) A group of students attending 1st year had the following dictation about Charlie and the
Chocolate Factory (see Appendix for the original copy). They practised self and peer
correction. The teacher also corrected the dictations. Neither peer nor self-correction led the
students to have a whole picture of their mistakes. Most of them could not recognize their
erroneous sentences. It was the teacher‟s correction the one that helped them see and
understand the mistakes made

30
ERROR CORRECTION

31
ERROR CORRECTION

32
ERROR CORRECTION

33
ERROR CORRECTION

4. CONCLUSION

Although teachers are ideally expected to provide accurate assessments of their

students‟ performance, students can also be extremely successful at monitoring and judging
their own language production. Student self-assessment is bound up with the whole matter
of learner autonomy. Addressing the teachers Brown (2001:68) advises: “Try to get students
to self-corrected errors; the ability to self-correct may indicate readiness to use that form
correctly and regularly”.

Error correction is regarded as conducive to foreign language acquisition in a

classroom atmosphere that benefits learning and favours the learners to feel freer to
experiment with the language regardless of the errors that may be made.The nature of the
teacher‟s feedback differs widely among teachers and classes of errors, and it depends on
such factors as courses, objectives, assignments objectives, individual expectations,
strengths and weaknesses and attitude toward learning.

During communicative tasks, teachers should not interrupt students to point out a
grammatical, lexical or pronunciation error, as the train of thought may be cut, focusing on
language form and accuracy rather than on communication. The language teacher should
help his/her learners to gain self-confidence and overcome their weaknesses, especially at
the beginning stages of the learning process, in a friendly comprehensible low anxiety
atmosphere. He/She should also provide feedback to their ill-formed structures in a
supportive manner, always reminding them the concept that errors and mistakes naturally
happen when learning a foreign language. In this context, learners may feel cared and
backed by their knowledgeable teacher and encouraged to use the language more
confidently. All the same, if the teacher provides a delayed correction it may mislead the
learner to understand that his/her erroneous work is correct.

Teachers should train their students to become active participants and correct
themselves, so they can be more confident and less teacher dependant. In Harmer‟s words

Teacher‟s treatment of errors can be either explicit or implicit correction. The former
case implies a detailed, direct correction, the teacher provides his/her learners with exact
forms or structures of their erroneous productions; the latter implies an indirect correction,
the teacher indicates the presence of errors providing some sort of clues with the intention of
peer or self- correction.

At the moment of error correction teachers have to bear in mind not only what type of
mistake was made but also how to provide a gentle correction to avoid discouraging
students in their attempts to use the target language. The affective impact of error correction

34
ERROR CORRECTION

depends on the learners‟ proficiency level, i.e. for good hard-working students it can have a
positive effect, whereas for the low-achievers it may cause a negative effect. Teachers need
to develop intuition, through experience, for ascertaining which teaching error technique is
most suitable for each group of learners, depending on the teaching objectives.

As far as the the percentages obtained in the present work, the survey shows that,
contrary to Edge‟s preference for self-correction, the learners participants are still teacher
dependant. They agreed with Rollinson who supports the belief that in many cases neither
teacher nor students recognise the usefulness of peer feedback and consider teacher
correction as the only authoritative one.

As regards affect, it played a negative role in shaping learners‟ attitude toward error
correction when correction came from the students themselves- their affective filter was
high.Some even said that the corrections provided by their mates were not always taken into
account by the corrected learner. They even complained that it was always the same
students who did participate in the oral group correction and felt frustrated at being pointed
out their difficulties and limitations by their classmates, developed a sense of inferiority and
felt that „Bullying‟ was exercised on them.

Finally, age also played its part in determining learners‟ evaluation of the error
correction techniques. It confirmed that during two running years teacher correction
technique remained in first place. Their opinion about Self-correction technique changed as
learners grew older,i.e.: they identified more with this technique, whereas peer correction
was no longer accepted.

We can conclude by saying that it would be convenient to keep on working on the

concept of student self-assessment and providing suitable learning situations that may
encourage learner autonomy since, if we, teachers, can guide them to reflect upon their own
learning, we may be equipping our students with a powerful tool for future language
development.

35
ERROR CORRECTION

APPENDIX

Dictation: Summary of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory- 1st Year

Correction Symbol Key

Sample Survey

36
ERROR CORRECTION

Dictation: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Charlie Bucket lives in a small poor house with his family. His four grandparents live
in the house, too. They are very, very old. They only eat cabbage and potato soup. His
father works in a toothpaste factory but one day he is fired.

You can see the biggest chocolate factory in the world in Charles‟ town. The owner is
Willy Wonka, the greatest chocolate maker in the world. Unfortunately, he closes the doors
of the factory and his workers go home. His enemies steal his secret recipes and make a lot
of money.

One day on his way to school, Charlie sees a big notice about Willy Wonka‟s
chocolate: five golden tickets are wrapped inside five chocolate bars. The prize is to spend a
whole day in the factory. There is a special prize that nobody knows what it is about. Charlie
has very few possibilities of winning: he eats a chocolate once a year, for his birthday.

His parents give him his birthday present but the golden ticket is not there. His
grandpa gives him money to buy another chocolate bar. But, once again, the ticket is not
there.

One day Charlie finds a note in the snow. He rushes to a kiosk and buys a Wonka
bar and... HE FINDS THE GOLDEN TICKET!! Charlie is the fifth winner.

The children and their families meet at the entrance of the factory. Augustus with his
mum, Violet with her mum, Veruca with her father, Mike with his father and Charlie with his
grandpa get into the factory.

Inside the factory Willy Wonka shows his guests the different rooms and they can eat
sweet things. But, one by one, the children leave Charlie alone. Mike, Veruca, Augustus and
Violet behave badly. To his great surprise, Charlie is the winner. Willy Wonka tells Charlie
about the special prize: Charlie is Willy‟s heir and the factory now belongs to Charlie. The
little boy cannot believe his ears!!

At the end of the day, Charlie, his family and Willy all live happily in the Buckets‟
house inside the factory.

37
ERROR CORRECTION

ERROR CORRECTION TECHNIQUE SURVEY

4th Year 2014

38
ERROR CORRECTION

Correction Symbol Key

W.O.: Word Order
SP. :Spelling
V.T.: Verb Tense
S-V. A.: Subject- Verb Agreement
^ Missing Word/s
H.: Homophony

39
ERROR CORRECTION

REFERENCES

 Bell, J. (1991) Using peer responses in ESL writing classes. TESL Canada Journal, 8,
65-71. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ427214.pdf
 Contrastative analysis http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/sgramley/CA-ErrorAnalysis-
Interlang-Lennon.pdf
 Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner‟s errors. International review of
applied linguistics in language teaching. Volume 5, number 4, pp 161–170. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019903.pdf
 Council for Cultural co-operation. Educational Committee. Modern language division,
Strasborg. (2001) Common European Framework Reference for Languages.
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
 Dawson, Nick. Pearson ELT Professional Development. Mistakes and Corrections.
Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonelt.com.ar/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/Mistakes%20and%20corrections.pdf
 Douglas Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles. An interactive approach to
language pedagogy. Second Edition. USA: Longman Pearson.
 Edge, Julian. (1989). Mistakes and corrections. Longman keys to language teaching.
Longman Pearson.
 Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed Second language acquisition Retrieved from http://www-
leland.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Courses/Ed388%20Website/Resources/Instructional%2
0Resources/Ellis%20Instructed-second-language%20-%20latest%20version.pdf
 Forbes, S. Poparad, M. A. McBride, M. (2004) To err is human: to self-correct is to
learn. A journal of the International Reading Association. The reading teacher. Vol.
57, No. 6, pp 566-572. USA. International Reading Association.
 Ghelichi, Maji (2011). Research paper: An account of sources of errors in language
learner‟s interlanguage. No. 90 ELT weekly. India‟s first weekly ELT newsletter.
 Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. An introduction to the practice of English
language teaching. England. Longman
 Harmer, J. (2001) The practice of English language teaching. 3rd edition. England.
Longman
 Huang, J. Error analysis in English teaching: a review of studies. Retrieved from
http://lib.csghs.tp.edu.tw/%E4%B8%AD%E5%B1%B1%E5%A5%B3%E9%AB%98%
E5%AD%B8%E5%A0%B1%E7%AC%AC%E4%BA%8C%E6%9C%9F/03ERROR%
20ANALYSIS.pdf

40
ERROR CORRECTION

 Loewen, Shawn. (2007). Error correction in the second language classroom. Clear
News. Michigan State University. Volume 11. Issue 2. Retrieved from
http://clear.msu.edu/clear/files/2514/0329/3290/Fall_2007_Newsletter-
_Error_correction.pdf
 Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
USA: McGuill University. SSLA, 20, 37–66.
 McArthur, T. (1998) Oxford concise companion to the English language. Oxford
University Press.
 Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner‟s preferences. TESL Canada
journal/Revue TESL du Canada. Volume 10, No 2. Retrieved from
http://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/viewFile/619/450
 Pene, Frances (1998) Directions: Journal of Educational Studies mistakes and errors
in students‟ writing. Vol. 20 No. 2. Retrieved from
http://www.directions.usp.ac.fj/collect/direct/index/assoc/D770152.dir/doc.pdf
 Spratt, M. Pulverness, A. Williams, M. (2005) The TKT teaching knowledge test
course. Cambridge. University of Cambridge. ESOL examination
 Tedick, D. J. and Gortari, B. The bridge: from research on error correction and
implications for classroom teaching.
 Touchie, H. Y. (1986). Second language learning errors their types, causes, and
treatment. JALT journal. Vol. 8 No 1. Retrieved from jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-
article/art5_8.pdf
 Yaghoubi, Ahmad (2009). The Journal of Modern Thoughts in Education. Error
Competence and Structural Competence in EFL Context. Vol 4, No 4, pp. 91-110.
Retrieved from http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/135020091606.pdf
 Zhu, Honglin. (2010) An analysis of college students‟ attitudes towards error
correction in EFL context. Vol. 3, No. 4. School of Foreign Languages. Changzhou
University China. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/37020/20724

41