Author’s name: Zsófia Fleischer

Programme: MA in TEFL

Academic year: 2

Course: Classroom techniques

Teacher: Lugossy Réka

Classroom observation study on oral error correction

The focus and the aim of the paper

This research aims to analyse the error correction strategies of Andrea Szabó —a primary
school English teacher—uses in her class of fourth graders. The reason I chose error
correction strategies as the focus of my study is partly because I am convinced that error
correction is an important part of the learning process. I am also convinced that this is a
delicate issue that needs to be tackled with competence and a positive attitude towards
students.
This study also ventures to give an overview of some questions relating to error correction.
My long-term goal with this paper is that I would like to put into practice the useful strategies
Andrea uses in her classes. I am planning to implement a new error correction strategy
drawing on my research results.

The context of research

The research was conducted during my teacher training practice at Bartók Béla Magyar-
Angol Két Tanítási Nyelvű Általános Iskola. The before mentioned school is a primary school
I attended a bit more than ten years ago. During these ten years the school changed for its
advantage in terms of language education. I observed not only the classes of Szabó Andrea,
but also that of some other teachers. The classes I saw were great, and the old grammar-
teaching method I was taught with was no longer prevalent, and teaching became a lot more
student-centered. When I attended this primary school all we did was drills and learning texts
by heart. Speaking in English—my English teacher always spoke in Hungarian—was out of
the question, let alone games, dramas, songs and cheerfulness. Despite everything, I liked
English even at that time. I hope that the changes I noticed are true not only in this school, but
language Education is changing for the better in Hungary.

Participants (students and the teacher)

I observed several classes, but in this paper the fifth graders and the methods Andrea used
with them are going to be analysed. This class consists of 15 students. They are lovely and
nice. Their English is surprisingly good, in spite of the fact that they started their English
education before the school became a bilingual school. They are not specialized in English,
they only have three English classes a week. They have been learning English for three years
now.
Andrea (49) started learning English at an adult, and she has been teaching English for twelve
years now. She is one of the best teachers I have ever seen. The classes I saw were model
classes, I had the idea that these classes should be put on you tube so as to make it accessible
to others who wish to see a model teacher. Her classes were enjoyable, varied and very well-
built. She showed me how the notion of “scaffolding” works in reality. She made a very good
use of the audio-visual technical equipment. She regularly goes to trainings and teacher
conferences, and she puts into practice what she learnt. I am grateful for the useful ideas and
teaching principles she provided me with during my teaching practice.
She has a very nice character, she is someone who is nice and great not only on the surface,
but it comes from the inside. I also had the impression that she is a sort of perfectionist, who
wants to give the best she can to the students.

Research questions

What’s Andrea’s general attitude towards error correction? Is it useful?

Which error correction method works best with what tasks?

Data collection instrument (s)

As for the data collection instruments, a combination of self-report and observational data was
planned. This mixed method research was used, in the hope of achieving a fuller
understanding of the vocabulary teaching strategies of Andrea, and also, to “verify one set of
findings against the other”. (Dörnyei, 2007, pp.164) During two English classes in which she
dealt with sixth graders I observed what she did in her class and what she did in therms of
error correction. I took note of every detail that could be intresting for my research. As for
Andrea’s own report, a fifteen-minutes long semi-structured deep interview was planned.
A semi-structured interview consists of a “set of pre-prepared guiding questions and prompts,
the format is open ended and the interviewee is encouraged to elaborate on the issues raised in
an exploratory manner.”(Dörnyei, 2007, pp.136) It was hoped that due to the observational
data, I would already have a good enough overview of Andrea’s error correction practices,
and that I would be able to develop broad questions about her attitude towards error correction
in general.

A short literature review on error correction

Repair is a technical term that is aimed to denote the ways in which teachers tackle errors.
The importance of the topic can be illustrated by the fact that error correction takes up a
considerable amount of teacher’s time. It includes direct and indirect error correction and all
the ways in which teachers spot errors. (Walsh, 2011, pp13)
Direct error correction is when mistakes are corrected quickly and easily, and the flow of the
communication or the discourse goes on with minimal interruption. It is an open and direct
approach that is far less time-consuming and intrusive than indirect error correction strategies.
One have to acknoledge that there is some logic in keeping error correction to a minimum
level in oral fluency activities. (Walsh, 2011, pp.33)
Indirect error correction is also called coded feedback, and it needs the equal involvement of
both the teacher and the student int he error correction process. The teacher uses a code and
the student correct his or her own error. It is a more sensitive and more time-consuming, buti t
increases learners’ responsibility in the error correction process and is likely to imrove
accuracy in the long run. (Sivaji, 2011, pp.11-12)

Depending on the teacher’s own previous experiences, the stated goal of the task, a teacher
can choose from the following options:
1. “ignore the error completely
2. indicate that an error has been made and correct it
3. indicate that an error has been made and get the learner who made to correct it
4. indicate that an error has been made and get other learners to correct it.” (Walsh, 2011,
pp.13-14)
Error correction is something that leads to disagreement between adamants of form and
meaning-focused instruction. Those who value meaning over form support a communicative
approach, with no explicit attention to form, tend to view error correction as possibly harmful
or ineffective. They think that we should avoid it since it „interrupts the flow of
communication”. And conversely, teachers in favour of form-focused instruction are likely to
consider error correction as essential. They are convinced that error correction will help
students master a second language. (Loewen, 2007, pp.3) Of course, these views are the
extremes of a continuum, and most of the teacher’s are situated somewehere between the two
ends.

As for the right attitude we should take about error correction, Walsh writes that the selected
error correction strategies must match the „pedagogical goals” of the given task. A highly
controlled activity, such as oral drills, need more error correction that tasks that are aimed to
improve the fluency of the students. (Walsh, 2011, pp.15-16) We should adapt an integrative
approach, in other words we should try to pay attention to language structures within a
meaning-focused task.

Having considered the contrasting views concerning error correction and right attitude we
should take when it comes to correcting mistakes, we are going to briefly summerise the main
error-correction types.

1. Recasting
Recasting is the „correct reformulation of a student’s incorrect utterance”. Its advantage is
that it is implicit, unobtrusive, it does not generally interrupt the flow of the communication.
As for its drawbacks, it is so implicit that sometimes students fail to notice it.

2. Explicit feedback
Explicit feedback is a clear and overt indication of an error.

3. Clarification request
Clarification request means „an indication that the utterance has been ill-formed,” and it does
not give any information about the type or location of the error. It aims students to find out the
mistake(s) themselves.
 4. Provision of metalinguistic information
This error correction strategy is about telling the learner what type of word (noun, verb,
adjective) is needed insead of the one he or she used. Its strong point is that it can be
beneficial, since it fosters awareness. The argument against its use is that it interrupts the
communication.

5. Elicitation
Elicitation is a technique that gives the possibility to learners to self-correct. The argument for
its use is that if it is used successfully, it is likely to have a beneficial impact on learning, in
other words it is good at making learners aware of the correct form. Its weak point is that it
cannot be used in all situations, as it requires the learner to have some latent knowledge about
the correct form. We can set up the following categories: „request of reformulation of an ill-
formed utterance”, „use of open questions”, „allowing the learner to complete an utterance”.

6. Prompting
Prompting is an error correction strategy in which the teacher tries to draw the student’s
attention to the error, with the aim of getting the student to self-correct. The prompting moves
are the following: „elicitation, metalinguistic clue, clarification request, repetition”.

7. Repetition
Repetition is an implicit error correction strategy, one in which the teacher repeats the ill-
formed part of the sentence with a change in intonation. (Rezaei, 2011, pp.22-24)

Observation and analyses of Andrea’s error correction strategies

In the following part of this research paper I am going to describe and analyse the error
correction techniques Andrea used in the class I observed. As for the main goal of this class,
the class was developed to revise and recycle both the questions learnt so far and some
vocabulary connected to fears.
The class started with a warm-up game: students were to recycle vocabulary learnt in
connection with fears. They were to construct word chains in groups of four for a minute, and
then some members from the groups reported back on their chains. Andrea used an explicit
error correction technique, she simply repeated the mispronounced words with a correct
pronunciation. The students were accustomed to repeating the mispronounced word with the
correct pronunciation after Andrea’s correction. Andrea’s choice of immediate correction was
justified by timing, it was quicker to give the correction herself than to repeat the
mispronounced word again for example, and wait for the student to self-correct. (elicitation)
After having recycled some vocabulary from the previous class, Andrea set the task of reading
out loud two familiar texts with the aim of recycling and pronunciation improvement. She
made this task interesting by telling the students to read two sentences, and then to call
someone to continue the text. The students seemingly enjoyed the freedom to choose between
their classmates. If a student could not pronounce a word correctly, Andrea used an explicit
error correction again, she simply repeated the mispronounced word with a correct
pronunciation.
The next part of the class was devoted to recycling questions learnt so far. First, Andrea
elicited the questions learnt so far in connection with animals (What is this? Is it.? Are you
(scared of)..? What are you (scared of)..? Do you have..? Have you got..?). She listed the
questions on the board, and she also got the students to answer the questions. She wrote the
answers on the board as well.
After having collected the questions and answers, Andrea went to the back of the class and
brought a basket full of plush animals (teddy animals). I know by experience that children
love plush animals, so I think that it is a marvelous idea to keep a basket full of teddy animals
in the second language classroom. She held a polar bear in her hands, and she elicited
questions from the students in connection with the polar bear. When a student made a
mistake, she pointed to the given question on the board, and had the student self-correct him
or herself. She used prompting as an error correction strategy. There was one student for
example who left out the word got from the sentence, and Andrea elicited the correct answer
from him.:
S: Have you a polar bear?
T: (pointed to the question : “Have you got a dog?”)
S: got… Have you got a polar bear?
I liked that she did not even say a word about the mistake, but she simply indicated that there
was a mistake, and the students managed to self-correct. In some cases the students could not
correct themselves, because the classmates were quicker than they were. In these cases the
peers corrected each other.
Then, Andrea made the whole class stand up, and she let one child choose an animal from the
basket. The child choose a rabbit, the class stood in a circle, and following Andrea’s
instructions the class played a game. It was an “ask-and-answer” game: a child asked one
question concerning the rabbit, and then threw the rabbit to one if his or her classmates. The
one who caught the rabbit answered the question, and then asked another question from
someone else. If someone made a mistake, Andrea told him or her to look at the board so that
the child could correct him or herself. For some reason still several students left out “got”
from the structure “Have you got”. After the third occasion, Andrea told that “homlokodra
írom”. And then, when another student made the same mistake it was enough that Andrea
pointed to the student’s forehead. I really liked this idea, and the students found it equally
funny.
Then, Andrea divided the class into two groups, the groups stood in a circle, and they
continued the same game with some new teddy animals. Andrea walked from circle to circle
and monitored the activity. By this time the number of the errors reduced slightly. If a student
made a mistake, Andrea either pointed to the board or said “Once again, please.”
Finally the class was closed with a pair-work activity: students chose one teddy animal per
pair and they asked and answered questions about the animal. After setting up the activity,
Andrea encouraged the students to correct each-other.

Results

What’s Andrea’s general attitude towards error correction?

In what follows I am going to describe Andrea’s general attitude towards error correction
strategies. Since she corrected—or, to be more precise, got the students to self-correct— all
errors emerging from the formulation of question, she seems to be convinced that it is
important to build a solid foundation of the English grammatical structures for young learners.
She seems to agree with the idea according to which some language forms and structures
might be acquired more quickly and correctly through being given special attention. During
the task that aimed the oral formulation of questions and answers, she gave students the
opportunity to self-correct.
However important she seems to consider error correction, she displayed a very positive and
encouraging attitude towards the students. Since she started learning English at an adult age,
and she also had some difficulties, she seems to be aware of the feelings a student experiences
when an arrogant teacher corrects the error. She knows that learners can be hampered by their
own attitudes towards errors, so she paid special attention not to do it too harshly. She has a
personality that would never humiliate a child or student because of the errors. The opposite is
true of her: she corrected errors in a constructive, encouraging and friendly way.

Which error correction method works best with what tasks?

The explicit correction of mistakes, or, to be more precise, recast worked very well with
correcting ill-pronounced words. As for the error correction strategies Andrea used in the task
that focused on the formulation of questions in speech, prompting the correct structure by
pointing to the board seemed to be working too. I have also tried this strategy since I observed
her class, and I think it worked well in the classes I tried it. With the aim of tackling recurring
mistakes her sentence of „homlokodra írom” sticked in my mind. I do not think that I will use
it with my adult classes, but with childten it seemed to be a lot of fun. As for the correction of
errors in the pair-work activity, the students seemingly got enhusiastic when Andrea told them
that then they were the teachers, and they could correct their pair’s mistakes. I believe that it
makes them more aware in their language use, if sometimes they can take the role of the
teacher.

Discussion

The class I observed was a well-built, interesting and useful one, and the students seemingly
enjoyed it. Andrea’s error correction strategies and the way she managed her class stands in
line with her philosophy about establishing a good relationship with students and not pushing
them down. Instead, she was working on the opposite: she encouraged the students, and she
seemed happy to hear all the good questions and answers. Her positive attitude to children and
her kindness definitely help students like English classes, and not develop inhibitions towards
making errors.
When dealing with ill-pronounced words in a reading activity, she used an explicit error
correction strategy, she simply repeated the given word with a correct pronunciation. When it
came to mistakes in the structure of questions and answers, she mainly used an implicit error
correction strategy: prompting. By pointing to the board—or the student’s forehead—she got
the students to self-correct. Self correction gives students the chance to integrate the correct
form into their English, and it also helps students become aware of the areas they still need to
pay special attention to.
Error correction was important in the class I observed, since the focus was on the correct
formulation of questions and answers. I believe that she was aware of the importance of
building a solid foundation in the first some years of second language learning.

Conclusion

Recast worked well for correcting ill-pronounced words in Andrea’s classroom. Since the
class I observed was one whose main aim was to recycle and revise knowledge about the
formulation of the questions, and the students already had some more or less latent knowledge
about asking questions, prompting by pointing to the board worked well in the classroom I
observed.
What also became clear in my mind during the classroom observation project is that it is not
only the error correction strategy we choose to employ for a particular task that matters in the
second language classroom, but also the way we correct errors, the attitude we have towards
the students. This is at least as important as the error correction strategy used.
References
Dörnyei, Z. (2007): Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mrs. Karunathevy Sivaji (2011): A Study of the impact of direct and indirect crror
Correction. Open University of Sri Lanka.

Saeed Rezaei (2011): Corrective feedback in SLA:Classroom practice and future directions.
AllamehTabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Shawn Loewen (2007): Error correction in the second language classroom

Clear news (Center for Language Education and Research, Michigan State University)
Volume 11, issue 2, 3-7
http://clear.msu.edu/clear/files/2514/0329/3290/Fall_2007_Newsletter-_Error_correction.pdf

Walsh Steve (2011): Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. London and New
York, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Appendix: Interview
Zs: Good afternoon, Andrea, can I ask you some questions about your attitude towards error
correction?

A: Certainly. Of course, you can. 

Zs: What’s your general attitude towards error correction? Is it useful? When you were a
learner did you find it useful?

A: I think the children need error correction, but more important than the error correction is
your attitude towards the children. So your correction cannot push the children down, I mean
if you have a good relationship with the children, you can correct their mistakes. But if you
don’t have a good relationship it’s difficult to correct their mistakes because they will feel that
you don’t like them. But if you like them, they won’t think like this.

Zs: I see, and I have never thought of it, though it’s a very interesting and important point.
Thank you. And..

A: And more important than the correction is that you have to isten to them, what they really
want to say, and you mustn’t listen just for the mistakes. You have to listen for the meaning.

Zs: And is error correction effective? Will it help students to achieve a better command of
language? Will they become more correct in their language use? Does it really help them?

A: It’s adifficult question to me, because I teach young learners, they cannot really speak.
They can only repeat some sentences. So the error correction depends on the age. If I teach
first and second graders I can correct their pronunciation, but not always, sometimes. And
sometimes I say something and they repeat the word or sentence in a wrong way then I say
again, and make them say again. And sometimes I correct the mistakes immediately. In the
second grade if they have to learn a grammatical structure I correct their mistakes
immediately. In the fourth grade if they want to tell something I listen to the meaning of the
sentence and I try to find the meaning of the sentence, and sometimes I correct them,
sometimes I don’t.
Zs: And which method works best with what tasks? I am going to tell you some typical error
correction types, and I would like to ask you to tell me when do you use these.
The first type is recasting, that is the correct reformulation of the student’s incorrect
utterance. For example when the student says „I go home yesterday” and the teacher says
„You went home yesterday?”

A: I am sorry, I cannot help you in that. Let’s talk about something else.

And, it depends ont he topic. If your topic is a grammar topic, maybe they have to use a learnt
grammar item I have to correct all the mistakes. Buti f they speak about their weekends, I
don’t always correct them.

Zs: And do you think it’s possible to correct mistakes without interrupting the flow of
communication?

A: Yes, I think it’s possible.

A: You can listen to them, and correct them And if many of them make the same mistake, I
write the right structure ont he board and they say again maybe.
Or I usually say „once again”, please.

Zs: Do you think that you impoved when your teacher or someone corrected you? Do you
think that error correction helepd you in improving your English?

A: Yes, sometimes. I think so. When I’m not sure about a structure, for example whet kind of
preposition do I have to use, and I say something. I am happy if my partner or my teacher
corrects me, because I want to speak clearly and correctly and accurately.

Zs: This is the end of the interview, thank you very much for your time.

A: You’re welcome. Goodbye!

Zs: Goodbye!