To Correct or not to Correct: Teachers’ Reaction to Certain Error Types

Hashil Mohammed Al-Sadi

PhD Research Student, School of Education,

Educational Research Department,University of Sheffield, UK

1

Abstract:

This paper reports on a study aimed to investigate feedback approaches and error noticeability

of a group of writing teachers teach at two different levels of proficiency on the university

foundation programme in Oman. Teachers were given a text produced by a student in a writing

class to mark. The paper makes a good account of the literature on error correction and

methods of feedback as necessary background to the study. The findings confirm those

reported in literature that teachers differ in their error noticeability and judgement of the

seriousness of certain error types. Teachers were also found to vary their feedback methods

depending on the nature of the error and students’ level of proficiency. Other feedback

techniques such as peer-editing and conferencing were reported by only a small number of

teachers.

The present study explains such observations in the light of research findings reported in

literature and proposes additional possible variables such as psychological, physical and

environmental factors which could explain why teachers vary in their error noticeability and

feedback style. Such factors have not been fully investigated. The study concludes by

stressing the importance for teachers to pay attention to their feedback methods and negotiate

these with their students allowing room for student preferences, reflection and autonomy.

Key words: feedback, writing, error correction, error noticeability, Oman.

2

Introduction

No matter what shapes it takes, all students expect some kinds of feedback on their written

work. Writing teachers use a variety of coding systems when commenting on their students’

written work. Although these marking codes tend to be standardized in certain language

programmes, the inescapable fact is that feedback remains largely subjective.

Error correction and feedback has attracted a great deal of theoretical and empirical research

over the past few decades. A number of studies have put teachers’ feedback under scrutiny

and investigated the effect of certain feedback types on the overall development of students’

fluency and accuracy in writing (see for example Fathman and Whalley, 1990; Hedgcock and

Lefkowitz, 1994). However, studies investigating the mechanism and variation of teacher

feedback are seriously lacking in research. In particular, it is not yet clear if all teachers notice

(and therefore identify) the same error types on students’ scripts, what factors such as

psychological or otherwise affect this noticeability, and what specific feedback methods writing

teachers consider suitable in contexts similar to the one under study, i.e. teaching English as a

foreign language to undergraduate Omani learners. In addition, it is not yet clear if teachers

consciously and purposively vary their feedback techniques according to students’ level of

proficiency.

This paper therefore addresses this lack in research and reports on a study carried out on a

group of writing teachers on the English foundation programme at Sultan Qaboos University of

Oman. The present piece of research employed empirical means to find out i) if all teachers

notice and respond to the same error types on students’ scripts, ii) if teachers teaching the same

course and operating under the same guidelines and criteria employ the same feedback methods

when commenting on the students’ writing, and iii) if teachers vary their feedback methods

according to the students’ level of proficiency. In a nutshell, the present study investigates the

error ‘noticeability’ and feedback methods of a group of writing teachers on the English

3

foundation programme in Oman. The present study contributes to the current body of

knowledge on error correction and feedback by adding a deeper understanding of the nature

and mechanism of feedback in a different teaching and learning context from those already

reported on literature. It also confirms the findings of the previous studies carried out on error

correction and feedback. Finally, the present study provides an important ground for further

research in ELT in general and the context under study in particular.

Context of study

The English foundation programme at the university is the responsibility of the Language

Centre. The Language Centre is the gateway to all freshmen who got enrolled on the university

different programmes of study. It is considered one of the largest of its kind in the Arabian

Gulf region with a student body of around 4000 each semester and more than 200 teachers from

30 different countries. Teacher qualifications range from a postgraduate diploma in

TEFL/TESL with a minimum of two years of teaching experience to a PhD. Their job is to help

students to improve their language and prepare them for the English-medium courses in their

subject areas. Students are placed at six different proficiency levels according to their

performance in a placement test administered at entry. Their level of proficiency in English at

entry is almost equivalent to IELTS band 4. The writing curriculum is set to equip students

with the skills and strategies necessary to successfully cope with the demands of the varied

academic writing tasks in their respective colleges. Students do twenty hours of intensive

English per week and have writing classes on a weekly basis. The materials used in writing

classes are mainly in-house but supplementary commercial materials are also used when

necessary. As regards marking and grading of students’ scripts, teachers at each level are

provided with specific descriptors and evaluation criteria to follow when carrying out marking.

Students’ scripts at exams are always double-marked.

4

By the end of the English foundation programme, students are expected to be able to write texts

of a minimum of 250 words, showing control of layout, organisation, punctuation, spelling,

sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary and produce a written report of a minimum of 500

words showing evidence of research, notetaking, review and revision of work, paraphrasing,

summarising, use of quotations and use of references.

Study Questions

The present study seeks to answer the following three questions:

1. What specific methods of feedback do writing teachers employ in the context under study?

2. Do these feedback methods vary according to students’ level of proficiency? If so, how?

3. Do all teachers identify the same error types on students’ scripts?

Literature Review

A number of recent studies have emphasized the central role error correction plays in the

process of second language learning (e.g., Chaudron, 1983; Long, 1983; Hedgcock and;

Johnson, 1988 and Lefkowitz, 1994). The principal aim of these studies was twofold: to

identify how and when teachers should correct their learners’ errors and mistakes and how

effective error correction is. According to James (1998:235), “One of the purposes of doing

error analysis is to identify the principles which should guide effective error correction.

Principled error correction is applied error analysis”.

Three levels of correction can be identified in literature: feedback, correction and remediation.

Feedback involves teachers to simply inform the learners that there is an error and leaving them

to discover it and correct it on their own. Correction, by contrast, involves providing the

learner with the necessary information or treatment that would help them correct their errors.

Here, the teacher may specify how and where, suggest alternatives and give hints that lead to

5

the correct form. At the remediation level, the teacher does not simply identify the error and

suggest ways of correcting it, but provides comprehensible information that allows learners to

revise or reject the wrong rule they had been operating under when produced the error. In other

words, remediation encourages students to reconstruct their mental representation of the target

language rules so that the error type or token does not recur.

Hammerly (1991) refers to these levels by suggesting a distinction between deep and surface

correction. For him, surface correction involves mare editing or putting right but does not

address the source of the problem. The deep correction, by contrast, addresses the source of the

error, gives students a clear picture of why a bit of language is the way it is and helps learners

to “reorganize their cognitive structures” (p.93).

The various studies that have been conducted to date have shown that error correction is

necessary and has proved useful in improving the quality of students’ writing (see for example

Fathman and Whalley, 1990). However, there are a number of principles that need to be

considered for an effective error correction. Firstly, error correction should be effective. For

an error correction to be effective, teachers, according to James (1998), need to use correction

techniques that bring about improvements in accuracy and at the same time efficient, i.e.

require less time and effort on the teacher’s part and have the desired effect on students.

Secondly, error correction should be sensitive. This is an important principle since not all

learners react similarly positive to their teacher corrections. Many authors have suggested an

individualised error correction or a whole-class correction. This would definitely ‘personalise’

the error correction process and make it a less threatening experience. Both Hammerly (1991)

and Edge (1989) emphasise the notion of a ‘humanised’ error correction. ‘Conferencing’ is

another technique to avoid a threatening error correction and to encourage student-teacher

active interaction and cooperation. Teacher-students conferencing entails both the teacher and

student discuss a piece of student writing either individually or in a group during the writing of

6

a composition, and after it is finished. Although conferencing can be critiqued by some

teachers as a time-consuming activity, it is viewed by others as an effective technique which

enables learners to freely speak out their intentions and describe the difficulties they encounter

with certain aspects of the skill. This last notion of cooperation between teachers and learners

has also been emphasized by Dheram (1995). Thirdly, error correction should match students’

preferences. Studies on error correction have indicated that students’ preferences for certain

type of correction cannot be ignored. Hedgcock and Lefkowtz (1994), for instance, found that

EFL learners prefer a form-focused feedback on their writing while ESL learners prefer a

content-oriented correction. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) in another study noted that a clear

agreement between teacher and student as to what will be commented on and how is a missing

ingredient of a typical approach to error correction.

Studies have also shown that teachers do not respond similarly to different error types. This

can be explained on the basis of two concepts which have been widely discussed in the

literature on error analysis, namely, Error Noticeability (James, 1998) and Error Gravity

(Roberta, et al, 1984; Mattar, 1989; James, 1998). Intuitively, not all errors have the same

effect on communication and thus errors vary in terms of “seriousness”. Error gravity then is a

measure of the effect a certain error has on communication. Nevertheless, there are different

factors affecting error gravity. James (1998) suggests the following criteria for error gravity:

error frequency, error density, grammaticality, comprehensibility, communicativity and

noticeability.

Experience and observation show that teachers differ in their judgement of learners’ errors. It

is hypothesised that teachers’ error gravity judgement would tend to reflect the frequency with

which a given error occurs (Mattar, 1989). This, however, turns out to be ungereralisable since

for other teachers, particular error types are more gravy than others regardless to frequency (see

for instance Roberta et al, 1984).

7

According to James (1998), some errors are unnoticeable by nature and so go unnoticed while

others occur very frequently in the text and rarely go unnoticed. He called the former type

“covert errors” and reserved the term “overt errors” for the latter. In addition, teachers view

certain error types as more serious than others and so it is worthwhile focussing students’

attention on such errors as they hinder communication and of a relatively high frequency of

occurrence in their scripts. In a similar study, Roberta et al, (1984) examined the faculty

response to the written errors of students at the sentence level. They concluded that teachers

judge the seriousness of certain errors differently.

Notwithstanding the previously discussed criteria for error gravity such as those of James

(1998), there are other factors which seem to impact teacher’s error noticeability and feedback

type but are not widely discussed in literature. These include psychological, physical and

environmental factors such as mood, fatigue and noise respectively. One could safely claim

then that teachers working under any of these factors may well miss out or deliberately decide

to not comment on certain error type. Therefore, such factors do play a role on the overall

teacher performance and hence need to be taken into account for a valid judgement of teacher

error noticeability.

As regards the effectiveness of certain feedback types, literature on error correction to date

suggests that there is no taken-for-granted way that best helps students overcome their errors

and mistakes and consequently improve their writing. Feedback types and modality such as

when, in terms of time and students’ level, to provide feedback, form/content-focussed

feedback, negative/positive feedback, marginal/terminal feedback, intensive/extensive

feedback, process/product-focussed feedback and finally implicit/explicit feedback, have no

apparent contributions to differences in overall writing quality (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz,

1994). Paradoxically, other studies, see for example Fathman and Whalley (1990), proved

8

evident that form and content-focussed feedback help students improve their grammatical

accuracy and the content of their compositions respectively.

In short, error correction and feedback have gained a special interest among researchers and

practitioners alike. Studies have investigated the effect different types of feedback have on

students’ writing accuracy and proficiency while others have looked at the features of effective

feedback. Studies on error correction suggest that error correction is required by learners

themselves and is essential especially in cases where the language processing task is difficult

and so self-correction, although encouraged, is not possible. In addition, teachers themselves

have different conventions about which types of error to be identified to students and what

feedback type is most effective. Hence, error correction needs to be handled effectively and

sensitively.

Study Design

Research sample

In order to answer the three research questions, a sample of eight writing teachers were

randomly selected as respondents in the present study. They were of various nationalities native

and non-native speakers of English and all of them (except for one) have had more than six

years of experience as EFL teachers. To answer the third question (if teachers vary their

feedback methods according to the students’ level of proficiency), the eight teachers were

chosen from two different levels of proficiency on the university English foundation

programme; i.e., four of them teach level 2 students and other four teach level 6 students.

Research instrument

As mentioned earlier, the present study aims to examine how teachers notice and respond to

their students’ writing errors and if they vary their feedback methods according to the students’

level of proficiency. To achieve this, teachers were given a short questionnaire which was

9

carefully designed to achieve the aims of the study. The questionnaire comprised two basic

sections. The first section was an open-ended question which required teachers to fully

describe their feedback techniques when responding to their students’ writing errors. The

second part comprised a short text randomly selected from a level-two writing class. Students

were asked to write their preference for study- whether they prefer to pursue their post-

secondary studies abroad or in Oman. In fact, the nature of the investigation predetermined the

methodology to be followed to answer the study questions. That is, since teachers were asked

to respond to a text, other data collecting techniques such as interviews or focus groups were

not possible.

Findings and Discussion

A careful analysis of the data gathered via the questionnaire revealed interesting and useful

results. As regards the general approaches available for teachers when responding to their

students’ errors in writing and if such approaches vary according to the students’ level of

proficiency (see study questions one and two above), the analysis of the responses given by the

writing teachers revealed systematic variations in the methods followed by teachers teaching at

the two different levels of proficiency chosen for the present study. For instance, level 2

teachers used more correction symbols than level 6 teachers did. In addition, level 2 teachers

did not only locate the error position on the script using marking symbols above each error, but

provided corrections for the erroneous words as well and pointed out the location of any

omissions. On the other hand, level 6 teachers appeared to provide lesser help depending on

the nature of the error and whether the students are able to self-correct their errors once these

are brought to their attention. It is also worth mentioning that only three out of the eight

teachers (two level 2 and one level 6) reported using peer-editing method as a follow-up

activity to the actual writing class. Harmer (1991) argues that student-student correction proves

useful in helping students reflect on their own errors as well as on others’. He proceeds that

10

such an approach can in itself be classed as a communicative activity. Another technique

reported by the study respondents was conferencing. Three level 6 teachers and, surprisingly

enough, only one level 2 teacher reported that they sat with their students after class or invited

them to their offices to discuss their work and provide feedback. In short, teachers do not seem

consistent in the way they respond to their students’ writing errors and their approaches to

feedback do vary according to the students’ level of proficiency.

Turning to the third question of the study, the analysis showed that teachers of both levels

showed varied noticeability towards certain error types. To further explain the point under

discussion, let us consider a sample of six error types extracted from the text which was given

to the eight teachers for marking (see the table below) and see how many teachers, out of the

eight, would identify these errors.

Error type Example Number of teachers identified the error

Spelling Continu 7/8

Forgin 7/8

Contury 8/8

Fragment Because I have… 7/8

Verb omission Another reason (*) that you 6/8

Article omission in forgin contury 7/8

Will be important thing 8/8

Word misselection Another 8/8

Esteem 8/8

Collocation High university 7/8

Table 1: Teacher responses to certain error types.

The data summarised in the table above show that not all teachers noticed and identified the same

error types. There was an agreement among the eight teachers concerning only four grammatical

mistakes out of the ten listed above. The other six mistakes were not identified as deviant on the

script by all teachers. In fact, one of the mistakes, omission of the main verb in a clause, was

identified as deviant by only six teachers.

11

This can be explained on the basis of the two concepts discussed earlier in the literature review

section: error noticeability and error gravity. James (1998) argues that some errors are by their

nature unnoticeable and so go unnoticed while others occur very frequently in the text and rarely go

unnoticed. Here, he makes a distinction between ‘covert’ and ‘overt’ errors. Another possible

explanation is that some teachers view certain error types as ‘less serious’ than others and so, to

theses teachers, it is worthwhile focussing the students’ attention on errors that hinder

communication and of a relatively high frequency of occurrence in their scripts. In a similar study,

Roberta et al, (1984) examined the faculty response to the written errors of students at the sentence

level. Their findings fall in agreement with those of the present study in the sense that teachers

judge the seriousness of certain errors differently. This could be one way to explain why the eight

teachers had varied judgment about the errors in general and about the verb omission error in

particular. Two of eight teachers did not point out this error for it was not considered a hindrance

to communication. The other explanation could be that the two teachers simply did not notice the

error, although an error of this type is usually classified as one of the serious errors and therefore

should have a high error noticeability rate (James, 1998). Factors mentioned earlier such as mood,

fatigue and noise could well explain such findings. Such an analytical view and observation simply

emphasise the significance of the present study as a basis for further investigations into teacher

feedback approaches and judgment of what is deviant and acceptable in the students’ written work.

Conclusions, limitations and recommendations

The role and mode of feedback in writing classes have been widely discussed in literature. The

assumption was that such data would provide useful information on how writing teachers respond

to their students’ errors in writing, which in itself provides a ground for valid evaluation of such

methods in conjunction with their effect on students’ writing proficiency and preferences to certain

feedback type and method. A number of studies have investigated teacher error correction styles

and feedback methods. However, the present study is considered unique for it is the first endeavour

in its context to explore areas such as teacher error noticeability and error gravity. Variation of

12

teacher feedback style and method with learners’ level of proficiency was also not addressed in the

previous research.

The findings of the present study do not only confirm those reported by studies conducted in other

contexts as regards teacher error noticeability and error gravity, but also provides fresher insight

into how teacher feedback methods vary according to learners’ degree of proficiency in the EFL

writing class. Generally speaking, the findings suggest that teachers differ in their noticeability of

the same error type and their responses vary with the students’ level of proficiency. In addition, the

study also confirmed that errors do not have the same gravity in attracting teachers’ attention.

Errors classified as ‘overt errors’ are more likely to be ‘noticed’ by teachers and thus identified to

the students as opposed to ‘covert errors’ which often pass unnoticed. In terms of the teachers’

response to the errors after they have been noticed, the data suggest that level 2 teachers use more

correction symbols and in most cases provide the students with correct forms of the erroneous

words more than level 6 teachers do.

Turning to limitations, any small-scale research has potential limitations. The present study is no

exception. The researcher is aware of two essential limitations of the present study. The first one is

that the sample was relatively small (eight teachers). Therefore, further investigations on a larger

sample could be more informative. The other limitation is to do with the absence of the teachers’

voice. A series of follow-up focus group interviews with a sample of writing teachers teaching at

different levels would generate deeper insight into teacher choice of a certain feedback method.

Furthermore, it is particularly important to research other factors affecting teacher error

noticeability and feedback style such as psychological, physical and environmental factors, i.e., it is

not yet clear to what extend do teachers admit the influence of factors such as mood, fatigue, noise,

limitation of time, etc. on their marking. The above limitations should not however be viewed as

weak elements of the present study but more of directions for further research into this important

area of ELT. The present study initially aimed to address specific research gaps and seek answers

13

to particular questions, which has been achieved. In addition, the methodology and data collection

technique had indeed served the aims set for the study.

Overall, teachers should be aware of their own methods of and approaches to feedback and

negotiate these with their students allowing room for student preferences, reflection and autonomy.

The agreed upon approach, however, should be compatible with the students’ level of proficiency,

help them become more conscious of their own errors and one which is neither demotivating by

over-correcting every single error nor deals with errors superficially so that students do not get

enough feedback on their work.

References:

Chaudron, C. (1983). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. In Robinett, B. and Schachter, J. (Eds.) Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Related Aspects, USA, The University of Michigan Press.

Dheram, P. (1995). Feedback as a two-bullock cart: A case study of teaching writing, ELT Journal, 49, 160-68.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two, New York: Oxford University Press.

Edge, J. (1989) Mistakes and Correction, London: Longman.

Fathman, A. and Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) Second Language Writing, Cambridge: CUP.

Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and Accuracy, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters LTd.

Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching, London: Longman.

Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.

James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use, London: Longman.

Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction, ELT Journal, 42, 89-96.

14

Long, M. (1983). Teacher feedback and learner error: Mapping cognitions. In Robinett, B. and Schachter, J. (Eds.) Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Related Aspects, USA, The University of Michigan Press.

Mattar, H. (1989). A Cross-Sectional Error Analysis Study of the Common Writing Errors Made by Adult Arabic-Speaking EFL Learners in Bahrain, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of East Anglia.

Roberta, V., Daisy, M. and Fredrick, L. (1984). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL errors, TESOL Quarterly, 18, 427-439.

15