ERROR CORRECTION IN AN EFL CONTEXT: WHAT IS TEACHERS' TENDENCY

Facultad de Humanidades y Educación

Magister en Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

ERROR CORRECTION IN AN EFL CONTEXT: WHAT IS

TEACHERS’ TENDENCY?

by

Maximiliano Ayala

Matilde Berríos

Francisco De Rodt

Ronald Urzúa

Second Language Acquisition

Magíster en Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera

Universidad Andrés Bello

June, 2014

Abstract

The objective of this article is to identify how a group of 35 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) high

school teachers assess written errors in different settings from the region of Valparaíso. A revision of the

literature was conducted in order to select the main theoretical components of the present study. Then, a

questionnaire was constructed including 4 aspects for teachers to evaluate, such as grammar, vocabulary,

spelling, and punctuation. After that, the questionnaire was applied, and results showed that teachers tend

to focus more on correcting grammar and vocabulary mistakes rather than spelling and punctuation.

Key words: error correction, writing, tendency, assessment, EFL

Resumen

El propósito de este artículo es identificar cómo un grupo de 35 profesores de enseñanza media de Inglés

como Idioma Extranjero evalúan errores escritos en diferentes lugares de la región de Valparaíso. Se

realizó una revisión de la literatura para seleccionar los componentes teóricos más importantes de la

investigación. Luego, se construyó un cuestionario que incluyó 4 aspectos que los profesores debieron

evaluar tales como gramática, vocabulario, ortografía y puntuación. Una vez aplicado el cuestionario,

los resultados arrojaron que los profesores tienden a enfocarse más en corregir los errores gramaticales y

de vocabulario que en los de ortografía y puntuación.

Palabras clave: corrección de errores, escritura, tendencia, evaluación, EFL

1. Introduction

The following study attempts to identify how a group of 35 high-school teachers of EFL from the region

of Valparaíso, Chile, assess written errors. The participants of this study are all teachers who are currently

working in an EFL setting.

The reason of this study is based on the problem that little research has been carried out in the area of

written error correction. Furthermore, even though there have been a big number of studies related to the

topic, not many researchers have focused on how teachers assess written errors. Since there is no standard

procedure in written error correction we would like to identify the tendency teachers have when

correcting them.

The results showed teachers tend to focus mainly on grammar and vocabulary errors rather than spelling

and punctuation errors when correcting written papers. However, there is a discrepancy regarding spelling

mistakes, in which some participants tended to consider this item relevant for writing composition, while

others considered this aspect as irrelevant.

2. Statement of the Problem

Error correction (EC) is a procedure every teacher of any subject has experienced inside the classroom. It

is a component expected either by teachers or students, and teachers feel that correcting errors is their

main responsibility (Pawlak, 2014, p. 6). More specifically to the language teaching profession, teachers

are always correcting students’ production errors, such as grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, among

others. Pawlak (2014) states that EC is a common activity and lessons follow a standard structure in

which the teacher makes a question, the student answers, and then receives feedback (p. 6). This

procedure is also analyzed by Polio (2002), who argues that error correction in writing is seen as one of

the most time consuming procedure for teachers (p.376). In the same line, Hyland and Anan (2006) state

correcting written errors is one of the most difficult tasks for teachers to do (p. 510). Brown (2007)

discusses the role of error in Error Analysis (EA), and states that teachers nowadays tend to focus more

on incorrect statements rather than correct ones. He also claims that EA fails to identify errors since the

learners, when producing the language, may be avoiding the forms that are difficult for them. In other

words, the absence of error does not mean that the learner has mastered the structures of the language. (p.

259).

Nevertheless, none of these authors deny the relevance it has in the learning process, and it is widely

known by teachers that making mistakes is a necessary component for learning. Regarding this, Brown

(2007) claims that “learning is fundamentally a process that involves the making of mistakes. Mistakes,

misjudgments, miscalculations, and erroneous assumptions form an important aspect of learning virtually

any skill or acquiring information.” (p. 257). In other words, errors are considered a fundamental part of

the process of learning and can provide information regarding to the learners’ most problematic features.

Furthermore, Hatef, Mozaffari, and Rezaei (2011) state that “an error must be viewed as evidence of

learners’ linguistic development, not as a sin to be avoided.” (p. 21).

Many studies have been carried out researching a variety of topics such as the effectiveness of error

correction, teachers’ and learners’ perception on error correction, error correction techniques and which

techniques teachers use, among others. However, according to Hyland et al (2006), “In practice, error

correction involves a threefold process of identification, evaluation, and correction, and the majority of

studies have focused on the latter two areas. So while research has explored the strategies and treatments

teachers use for error correction and the effects these have on students’ revisions and writing

development, the important issue of how teachers recognize and judge errors has received less attention.”

(p. 510). Following this line, there has been a tendency among researchers on studying oral error

correction rather than written error correction, being the latter still part of discussion (Polio, 2012, p. 375).

Furthermore, there are no clear standards for correcting written mistakes. It is because of this problem that

this study aims to identify the tendency teachers have when correcting written errors

3. Main Goal and Hypotheses.

Main Goal:

To identify the tendency a group of EFL high-school teachers have when assessing written errors.

Hypotheses:

1. Teachers tend to focus more on grammar mistakes.

2. Teachers tend to focus more on spelling mistakes.

3. Teachers tend to focus more on punctuation mistakes.

4. Teachers tend to focus more on vocabulary mistakes.

4. Review of the Literature

4.1 The Concept of Error Correction in the EFL Classroom

There is some confusion that can lead to uncertainty among EFL teachers who misunderstand the concept

of mistake and error, where the first one refers to involuntary “slips” or “lapses” a learner can make and is

able to self-correct and error is conceived as a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native

speaker norms or facts. (Brown, 2000, p. 217).

However, this study will not focus on the differences between errors and mistakes, intralingual (native

language association) and interlingual errors (rule overgeneralizations using target language), global and

local errors or those included in the surface structure taxonomy (Dulay, 1982), because even though they

are important from a theoretical perspective, we do not consider them as highly relevant for teachers

when correcting students’ assignments under constraints such as time and number of students.

Furthermore, we will conceive errors and mistakes as synonymous referring to the production of

inaccurate forms in learners’ oral and written output. (Pawlak, 2014, p. 3).

The analysis of the present study will be based on the conception of error as “a linguistic form or content

that differs from native speaker norms or facts, and any other behavior which is indicated by the teacher

as needing improvement” (Chaudron, 1986, as cited in Pawlak, 2014, p. 3). Considering we are in the

Chilean context, the teacher becomes the referent of native speaker guider and facilitator of the learning

process.

According to different teacher’s methodology and point of view there can be two ways of conceiving

errors in TEFL. In some cases, it is considered as something that should be avoided and corrected

immediately because it hinders communication whereas, there is another way of looking at them as a

source of information that tells us if there is learning improvement taking place, it provides evidence and

lets us witness the process of making new constructions of meaning by learners. (Scrivener, 2006, pp.

298-304)

4.2 Teachers’ Perspectives on Error Correction

As it was mentioned above, error correction is a common activity in the EFL classroom. Teachers are

always correcting and providing feedback to their students. However, how do teachers correct errors?

What is the base teachers have to correct students’ errors? Regarding to this, Russell (2009, p. 21)

comments the following, “[e]rror correction has a long and controversial history. (…) Whether and how

to correct errors usually depends upon the methodological perspective to which a teacher ascribes”. (as

cited in Pawlak, 2014, p. 8). In other words, how teachers correct will depend on their procedures (or

approach) inside the classroom. Another perspective is provided by Hyland et al (2006), who analyze the

perspective teachers have regarding errors. They state that correction is determined by a variety of factors

such as “stereotyped expectations of students’ ethnolinguistic identities (Rubin and Williams-James,

1997), their training in English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction (Sweedler-Brown, 1993), and

even their perception of whether writers are native or ESL students (Janopoulos, 2002)” (p. 511). These

factors are supported in Ferreira’s study (2011), who states in her theoretical framework that how teachers

correct errors is based on their “experience as teachers, as learners and as participants in teacher

educational programs.” (p. 7). Taking this perspective into account, it can be inferred that how teachers

correct students errors will depend on their background either as teachers or students. If there is a

connection between experience and type of mistake corrected, it would be interesting for researchers to

determine that the way errors are corrected is influenced by a standard model of correction within a

specific group.

4.3 Research on Written Error Correction

George (1972) begins commenting on this research that high frequency of correction is a waste of class

time that only serves the purpose to annoy. Dresdner (1973) and Allwright (1975) believe that attention to

errors that happens frequently is worthy to be corrected, whereas Johansson (1973) believes grammatical

errors deserve a greater focus of correction than those that deal with lexical items. In addition, Burt’s

(1975) study concentrates on errors which affect the overall sentence organization, such as wrong word

order, missing, wrong, or misplaced connectors, and errors which affect single elements in a sentence

such as nouns, verbs, articles, and auxiliaries, among others. Furthermore, he emphasizes that native

speakers of English have more trouble when it comes to understanding a foreign student’s utterance

possessing global errors than those with local errors, such as the case presented. Also, Cohen (1975) big

focus relies on the relevance that a teacher gives to error. For instance, they may let an error uncorrected

during a lesson (as cited in Cohen, 1975, p. 415).

Hyland (2006), who depicts a native EFL teacher who was more selective by identifying far fewer errors

and saw appropriateness as a basis of error judgment alongside a Japanese English teacher teaching the

L2 in Japan who was less lenient in correcting errors, found more errors, employed infringement of rules

as his main criterion in judging error gravity. Thus, Burt recommends teachers to work primarily towards

correcting global errors.

Although there is a lot of research about error correction in second language teaching, there are many

other features to be considered in this process which have to do with the teachers’ attitudes towards their

students´ learning from mistakes. Teachers who provide opportunities and encourage their learners to

learn from correcting their own errors help their students create adaptive ways of dealing with mistakes

(Anderson, Hamilton, & Hattie, 2004; Heimbeck, Frese, Sonnentag, & Keith, 2003; Meyer,Seidel, &

Prenzel, 2006). Research has shown that when clear standards are stated in the classroom and a positive

and emotionally safe learning atmosphere is present, learners will develop a positive error culture

(Goldin, Epstein, & Schorr, 2007; Spychiger, Kuster, & Oser, 2006). Students who develop positive

attitudes towards mistakes and manifest less negative emotions are those who feel confident that they will

be treated with respect when making a mistake in class (e.g.,Edmondson, 1999; Malmivouri, 2006; Tulis

& Riemenschneider, 2008). On the contrary, when teachers tend to punish students’ errors, or just ignore

them, their students will not be able to take risks and they will hide their errors instead of communicate

their misconceptions confidently.

By supporting on previous studies this research’s focus is to identify how a group of EFL high-school

teachers classify written errors so as to have a broader understanding of what error correction in the

context of Valparaiso has to offer in the context of education.

5. Methodology

5.1 Data Collection

In order to answer the research question of the present study how do teachers tend to correct written

errors, it was decided to work with a group of 35 EFL high-school teachers from the region of Valparaíso,

Chile, whose ages ranged from 24 to 45 years old. All of them are from different educational institutions,

either public or private. Teachers were randomly selected and asked to rate 20 sentences containing

grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and spelling errors using a Likert scale.

As for the instrument, it was decided to apply an error correction questionnaire which was validated by

conducting a pilot test to five EFL teachers who work in different settings such as ESP programs, public

and private schools, and the area of English Language Teaching (ELT) consultant. After that, the

questionnaire was applied to the remaining 35 participants. According to Brown (2001), “questionnaires

are any written instruments that presents respondents with a series of questions or statements to which

they are to react either by writing out their answers or selecting from among existing answers.” (as cited

in Dörnyei, 2003, p. 6). The reasons for using a questionnaire instead of any other instrument in this study

is discussed by Dörnyei (2003), who provides a framework of the advantages of using a questionnaire in

second language studies. In general, he states they save time for the researcher, can be applied to a large

number of people in little time, and are relatively easy to analyze (pp. 9-10).

Finally, data was analyzed by counting the number of answers based on the relevance teachers give to

errors. Every question was analyzed taking into account the number of answers of each participant. In the

following section, the results are provided and an in-depth analysis is conducted.

5.2 Results

Grammar Mistakes Shown in a Linear Graph

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

Grammar

The following results clearly show teachers tend to pay more attention to students’ grammar mistakes. In

general, the majority of teachers who completed the questionnaire considered grammar mistakes as

‘relevant’ in writing, having a percentage of 35.4. On the other hand, a little amount considered grammar

mistakes were ‘irrelevant’, with a percentage of 2.2.

Vocabulary Mistakes Shown in a Linear Graph

As for the vocabulary item, teachers tended to consider these types of mistakes as ‘relevant’ in writing,

with a percentage of 29.7. Only few teachers considered vocabulary mistakes as “quite irrelevant” or

“irrelevant”, with percentages of 7.4 and 16.5, respectively, while others stated vocabulary errors as

“neither relevant nor irrelevant”. However, alongside grammar, vocabulary is still a determinant factor in

writing composition.

Punctuation Mistakes Shown in a Linear Graph

The third category, punctuation, received special attention by the participants. As it can be noticed, the

majority of teachers considered punctuation mistakes as “neither relevant nor irrelevant”, with a

percentage of 28.5, whereas the rest of the participants considered punctuation mistakes as “relevant” in

composition, with a percentage of 28.

Spelling Mistakes Shown in a Linear Graph

Finally, the spelling mistakes category showed an interesting result. On the one hand, some teachers

considered it to be ‘irrelevant’, with a percentage of 25.7, while other teachers considered these mistakes

as ‘relevant’ for writing composition, with a percentage of 32. As it can be noticed, bimodality appeared

in the results of this criterion.

5. Conclusions

After identifying the target group, the hypotheses of this study supported that teachers tend to focus on

four main areas of correction, being grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. Once that the results

were analyzed, it was determined that teachers lean towards grammar being considered one of the most

relevant linguistic feature rather than vocabulary or spelling and punctuation errors when correcting

written papers. However, there is a discrepancy regarding spelling mistakes, in which some participants

have a tendency to consider this item relevant for writing composition, while others considered this aspect

as irrelevant.

According to the results from this research we can recommend to establish different criteria to grade

errors in writing depending on the level of proficiency of the learner. As for early stage learners the focus

should be upon meaning instead of accuracy because we fear beginners might get annoyed, frustrated and

be discouraged from writing tasks; whereas more proficient learners will gradually be more accustomed

to this type of correction when a lot of rewriting takes place.

As for the implications and limitations of this study, this research could be considered an interesting area

for scholars to determine how teachers from different contexts correct other aspects of written errors as

well as oral mistakes or a combination of both. Another limitation was the fact that this study did not

include the level of students regarding to the mistakes present in the questionnaire, which is an important

factor since teachers have the need to know the level of the students when correcting mistakes. Thus, this

limiting factor could be useful for further studies.

References

Anusienė, L., Kaminskienė, L., & Kavaliauskienė, G. (2009). Classroom Practice: Error Correction at

Tertiary Level. Studies About Language (Kalbų Studijos), 14, 65-72. Retrieved from

http://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/14_numeris/11.pdf

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The Relative Effectiveness of Different Types of Direct Written

Corrective Feedback. System, 37, 322-329. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 17, 102-118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Brown, D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Cohen, A. (1975). Error Correction and the Training of Language Teachers. The Modern Language

Journal, 59, 414-422. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/325488

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and

Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Farrokhi, F. (n.d.). Teachers’ Stated Beliefs about Corrective Feedback in Relation to their Practices in

EFL Classes. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 91-131.

Ferreira, K. (2011). Brazilian English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Beliefs about Grammar-Based

Feedback on L2 Writing. Retrieved from

http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=etd

Guénette, D. (2007). Is Feedback Pedagogically Correct? Research Design Issues in Studies of Feedback

on Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error Correction in Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Practice.

Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/326176

Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006). Teachers’ Perceptions of Error: The Effects of First Language and

Experience. System, 34, 509-519. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.09.001

Jefferson, G. (1974). Error Correction as an Interactional Resource. Language in Society, 3, 181-199.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166762

Lee, I. (2005). Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? TESL Canada

Journal, 22, 1-16. Retrieved from http://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/view/84

Loewen, S. (2007). Error Correction in the Second Language Classroom. Clear News, 11, 8. Retrieved

from http://clear.msu.edu/clear/newsletter/fall2007.pdf

Pawlak, M. (2014). Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues.

Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/linguistics/book/978-3-642-38435-6

Polio, C. (2012). The Relevance of Second Language Acquisition Theory to the Written Error Correction

Debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004

Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (2011). Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and

Future Directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 21-29. Retrived from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/view/8719

Shaofeng, L. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language

Learning, 60, 309-365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x

Truscott, J. (2007). The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write Accurately. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003

Truscott, J.,& Yi-ping, A. (2008). Error Correction, Revision, and Learning. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 17, 292-305. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Tulis, M. (2013). Error Management Behavior in Classrooms: Teachers’ Responses to Students Mistakes.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 56-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.003

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical

Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1-27. Retrieved from

http://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/119171

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive

Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9922.2011.00674.x

Wang, P. (2010). Dealing With English Majors’ Written Errors in Chinese Universities. Journal of

Language Teaching and Research, 1, 194-205. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.3.194-205

Appendix

ERROR CORRECTION QUESTIONNAIRE

The prime use of the current questionnaire is to know how teachers classify errors in writing.

The results of this study will be of great value to all participants: the learners, the instructors, the

testing experts, the article writers, and the academics. We would be grateful if you could take

time to answer 20 short statements. Your comments will be of great help.

This is an anonymous questionnaire; it intends to provide useful information about error

correction in written essays, there will not be future assessment or judgment on the answers

given.

On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being quite irrelevant, 2 being irrelevant, 3 being neither, 4 being

relevant, and 5 being quite relevant put a tick (√) in the answer that best describes your stand in

evaluating the following L2 writing errors in the numbered columns.

QUESTIONS 1 2 3 4 5

1. Were you hear last night when the bomb exploded?

2. I am going to give you two advices.

3. Is Max yurfrend?

4.Lets take care of our planet.

5.I have quitesmoking since I found out that my friend was diagnosed with

lung cancer.

6. How many money do you have in your pocket?

7. Ronald is afraid of Rottweilers because he said they could bait him.

8. We could’nt get there on time.

9.Disable people have different abilities.

10. I like don’t all kinds of music.

11.A: Why don’t you try that dress?

B: Because I tryed a more beautiful one.

12.Many years agothe experiment was carried out.

13. Sure, I do wanna go out with you!

14. MondayDecember7th2010.

15.Do you know how many time does this take?

16. The boy was swiming in the river.

17. Timeconsuming / Twentyone.

18. Did you know that the sun’s radiation effect the rotation of planets.

19.This is Susan cell phone.

20. I cry every time she cryes.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.