1. Teresa R. Bell Brigham Young University SWCOLT 2017 tbell@byu.edu
Students’ and Teachers’ Views of the Role of Error Correction in the Proficiency-Based Classroom
Teresa R. Bell
Brigham Young University
SWCOLT 2017

2. Introductions Name Where you’re from/where you live Where you teach
Language(s) and level(s) you teach
How long you’ve been teaching

3. Overview of Presentation
Introduction
Brief Review of the Literature
The Study
Implications for Teaching

4. Introduction
Error correction has been a controversial topic in language teaching for years and years and years. It still is!
Traditionally, teachers have responded to students’ spoken and written language production by correcting their errors in grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, or pronunciation.
The focus of written and spoken language has often been to correct every single error. Krashen (1977) was among the first to suggest that correcting all errors might not be helpful.

5. The Current Study
There are mismatches between teacher and student beliefs about languages should be taught and when and how errors should be corrected.
Because of these mismatches, I decided to conduct a study to look at students’ and teachers’ view of error correction with the hope of managing disparities.

6. The Role of Error Correction
The majority of feedback teachers give students focuses on mistakes students make, even though recent research findings suggest that this is not the most effective form of error correction.
Current studies have indicated that other types of feedback are also necessary if the quality of students’ work is to be improved. In summarizing the research on writing feedback, Gass and Magnan (1993) placed the following types of feedback on a continuum:
no feedback at all;
no explicit correction, just comments on content;
positive comments as well as suggestions for improving content;
positive comments as well as suggestions for improving content and grammar;
identification of form errors without help toward correction;
indirect error marking using a coding system for learner self-correction;
direct correction of form errors as well as positive comments;
direct correction of form errors.

7. Six types of feedback
Lyster and Ranta (1997) list six types of teacher feedback. Let's see how they would work if the teacher had been communicating with a former politician who said, “We should not be held hostile by other nations.”
Explicit correction: “No, the correct word is ‘hostage’ not ‘hostile’.”
Recasts: "I understand that it is important that we not be held hostage by other nations."
Clarification requests: "I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by being held "hostile."
Metalinguistic feedback: "Being held ‘hostile?’ Is that the word you want?"
Elicitation: " we should not be held ______?" "We do not want to be held _____?"
Repetition: "We should not be held ‘hostile? hostile?’"

8. Explicit Corrective Feedback

9. Recasts

10. 6 types of feedback
In 2007, Ranta and Lyster acknowledged that these types are still widely used, and they added two categories.
Explicit correction
Recasts
Clarification requests
Metalinguistic feedback
Elicitation
Repetition
Reformulations: supply learner with target
reformulations of their non-target prompt
Prompts: include a variety of signals that push learners to self-repair

11. Recent Research
In Lyster, Saito, and Sato’s 2013 state-of-the-art article, “Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms,” the researchers find that Lyster and Ranta’s 1997 suggestion still holds true: “Teachers might want to consider the whole range of techniques they have at their disposal rather than relying so extensively on recasts” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 56).

12. Research about student and teacher attitudes
Wipf (1993) discovered that students tend to consider error correction to be a helpful in language learning.
Bell (2005) found that 457 post-secondary teachers of Spanish, French, and German did not agree about when and how errors are corrected.
Brown (2009) found that teachers and students also did not agree about when errors should be corrected.
Schulz (1996, 2001) found that 90% of students want their errors to be corrected, and only 30% of teachers think they should correct student errors (824 students and 92 teachers)!

13. Method Students Teachers
147 German 101 and 102 students at the University of Oklahoma
Age range: 18-21
91 male, 56 female
One NNS of English
44 in 101
103 in 102
Teachers
11 teachers
Age range: 23-48
Years of teaching experience: 1-19
9 NNSs, 2 NSs
All had completed a FL methods course

14. Questionnaire
Student and teacher questionnaire contained similar items regarding error correction.
There were 25 items.
Paper and pencil version

15. Rate the following items about error correction:
SD (strongly disagree), D (disagree), A (agree), or SA (strongly agree)
Most students dislike it when they are corrected in class.
Teachers should correct students' pronunciation or grammatical errors in class only if these errors interfere with understanding.
Students prefer to be corrected by their fellow students in small group work rather than by me in front of the entire class.
Students learn more when I correct the errors they make in class.

16. Rate the following items about error correction:
SD (strongly disagree), D (disagree), A (agree), or SA (strongly agree)
5. The teacher should consider the students’ feelings when correcting students’ mistakes.
6. Students learn more when I correct the errors made by their fellow students in class.
7. My students’ level of knowledge and ability in the foreign language should determine which mistakes are marked on their papers.

17. Student results
In terms of spoken and written error correction, results indicate strong agreement among students in the follow areas:
students like to be corrected in class;
teachers should correct student errors in front of the class and in small groups;
students like teachers to explain why a response is incorrect and to use recasts as a method of correction;
students learn more when teacher corrects them than when fellow students do;
they learn more when the teacher corrects their errors than when teachers do not;
students would like teachers to correct all of their written errors and provide general comments about how students can improve their writing; and
students do not feel discouraged when their errors are corrected.

18. More student results
There was less agreement among students in the following areas:
*students like having errors corrected by having their teacher give indirect cues or hints to signal errors;
teachers should consider students’ feelings when correcting errors;
teachers should correct written errors by writing everything correctly that was written incorrectly; and
students are disappointed if a teacher does not correct every error in written work.
* = item yielded strong agreement among teachers

19. Teacher results
With respect to spoken and written error correction, there is strong agreement among teachers for several questionnaire items:
most students feel disappointed if teachers do not correct every mistake in formal work they turn in;
*when students make errors in speaking, they would like their teacher to correct them by…
using indirect cues or hints to signal errors;
explaining why their responses are inaccurate;
repeating back what they said correctly;

20. Teachers also agreed that…
students prefer to be corrected by their fellow students in small group work rather than by the teacher in front of the entire class;
students learn more when I correct the errors they make in class;
the teacher should consider the students’ feelings when correcting students’ mistakes;
when students make errors in writing, they would not like their teacher to correct the errors by marking all the errors without indicating what was wrong, but would like them to indicate what was wrong;
by writing correctly everything that was incorrectly written, and by providing general comments about what they need to work on; and
their students’ level of knowledge and ability in German should determine which mistakes are marked on their papers.

21. Teacher and student agreement
Teachers and students agreed on only two items:
students learn more when teachers correct their errors in class; and
students would like their teachers to provide general comments about how to improve the accuracy of their writing and to mark errors by indicating why they are errors.

22. Significant results
The most significant results of this study are the questionnaire items that yielded lack of agreement between teachers and students. These two groups did not agree on the following:
teachers should correct all errors in writing by writing correctly everything that was incorrectly written (only 18% of the teachers agreed, but 59.2% of the students agreed); and
students’ level in German should determine which written mistakes are marked on their papers (82% of teachers agreed, but only 40.1% of students agreed).

23. Discussion of results
Teachers and students agreed that error correction is important and that a number of different corrective feedback strategies for correcting errors in spoken and written language production by their students should be employed.
This finding is of interest to teachers because it does not corroborate the findings in previous studies that students and teachers do not agree on methods of error correction.
Because the role of error correction in the L2 classroom has been a controversial topic in the research literature for years, and there is comfort in knowing that teachers and learners of German at the University of Oklahoma are in agreement about error correction.

24. More discussion
Teacher should ask their students about their own beliefs about how errors should be corrected and then also briefly explain to them the rationale of communicative and proficiency-based activities in the classroom that foster L2 learning.
After explaining to students activities that focus on communicative situations and negotiation of meaning will be used frequently in the classroom, the teacher can explain why and can tell students that they will be able to become successful learners when they actively participate.
Let students express their feelings about error correction. the teacher can explain what the research in SLA on error correction has found and how errors will be addressed in class. My strong belief is that once students understand why teachers teach the way they teach, the gap between the teachers’ and students’ beliefs will narrow, and the experience of language learning will improve.

25. Pedagogical implications
By examining teacher and student views of EC, the German section head, German language coordinator, German teachers, and the department pedagogy specialist were able to assist teachers in bridging the gap between teacher and student perceptions regarding EC.
Teachers have been able to better teach students using methods that facilitate more enjoyable German learning with the hope that if the affective filter is low for students, they will learn more quickly and successfully and may consider continuing their study of German at more advanced levels.

26. Immediate application of results
Second-semester beginning German class during Spring Semester There were ten students in the class.
Five times throughout the semester the teacher held ten-minute learning training sessions in English.
Students were asked to share their views on homework, EC, classroom activities, and assessments. The teacher listened intently, wrote down student comments, and explained the rationale for activities, assignments, and assessments.

27. More about the immediate application
Students were asked to share their perceptions of how errors should be corrected, and the teacher responded by providing examples and explanations from the research literature.
By the end of the semester, all ten students reported on the course evaluation that they really enjoyed German during this course as a result of the open dialogues with their teacher. One year later, all ten of these students were still taking German. Five studied abroad during the summer of 2013, six added German as a major or double major, four added German as a minor, and six studied abroad in the fall of 2014.
In March 2017, one is in Austria on a Fulbright teacher exchange. One is starting medical school after studying for two years in Heidelberg. Another is starting medical school after majoring in German. One was just accepted to law school this week. Those who added German as a major or minor completed their degree in German.

28. Suggestions for teachers
Allow students to talk about their language learning preferences and explain to why we teach the way we do.
If teachers explain to students why they use certain EC methods, there is a good chance that students will be more willing to engage in more meaning-based activities than the grammar-based activities to which they have become accustomed.

29. Implications for future research
Administer the same questionnaire to students in intermediate- and advanced-level language classes.
Administer a similar questionnaire teachers and students in high schools and junior high schools.
Compare the extent to which teachers at the university-level and high schools and their students agree on error correction.
Compare teachers’ perceptions of the role of error correction with their actual teaching practices.

30. Main take-aways
Allow students to share their thoughts and feelings about error correction (and other aspects of language learning) in a safe forum. Validate their thoughts and feelings.
Explain to students why you correct their errors when and how you do.
If you do, your students will be happy. 
Völkerschlachtdenkmal (Monument to the Battle of the Nations) in Leipzig, Germany