CHAPTER I

THE CONCEPT OF ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSROOM

INTRODUCTION
Error prevention and error correction were two of the main concerns of language
teaching in the 1950s, and for a substantial part of the 1960. The audio-lingual approach
which dominated the foreign/second language classroom at the time dictated that errors
detected in the performance of the language learner be corrected comprehensively and
immediately, so that they would not become part of his or her habit system. The correction of
errors was to be the exclusive preserve of teachers, who were expected to demonstrate no
patience of errors.

To begin with, in education, corrective feedback is viewed as crucial for motivating

learners and helping their learning. One should note here that, a growing body of research on
corrective feedback in EFL points to its importance for the process of language acquisition.

It is undeniable that mistakes and errors are an inevitable side effect of all learning,
and yet so much learning time is spent denying or correcting them. There has always been
much concern and discussion on errors and error correction in second (L2) and foreign
language (FL) learning and teaching. Studies on error correction have become a target of
many researchers whose main goal is to investigate the role of error correction in language
learning.

A growing body of research on corrective feedback in foreign language and second

language points to its importance for the process of language acquisition. However, numerous
experts, researchers, and teachers share conflicting opinions on error correction and its effect
on learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Ferris (1999, as cited in Truscott, 1999)
asserts that “no one should argue for the abandonment of error correction, and even gives a
myriad of reasons for error correction in classroom”. According to Corder (1973), “language
is not a question of acquiring a set of automatic habits, but a learner’s process of discovering
the underlying rules, categories, and systems of choice in the language presented to him or her
by the teacher”. Subsequently, many teachers provide corrective feedback in order to correct
learners’ mistakes and errors in language usage and to help them benefit from making those
mistakes and errors. For this reason, the teacher’s role seems to be crucial in corrective
feedback.

1
 However, there is little evidence that language acquisition comes from being
corrected. Truscott (1996) asserts that “error correction is actually harmful to learners and that
focusing only on the incorrect and correcting every error discourages learners from taking
risks in language learning”.

At the same time, teachers should pay attention to learners’ attitudes and opinions in
order to save learners’ motivation and improve their results by making them aware of their
errors. Teachers and learners should communicate clearly in order to find out what kind of
approach to error correction favor learners and their language acquisition the most. According
to Ellis (as cited in Zhu, 2010), “the most significant contribution of error analysis lies in its
success in changing the status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide to language
learning”. Thus, researchers view errors as evidence of the learner’s positive contribution to
foreign language learning rather than as a sign of learner’s inability to master the new
language. Therefore, error correction is considered one of the most important aspects of
learning and teaching foreign language.

From these facts, one may conclude that error correction is one of the major areas in
language pedagogy and also in the area of teacher's role in language learning. Although, the
role of error correction and feedback not only depend on the language educator, but also on
the student.

Moving from this, it is necessary that EFL teachers use a combination of sensitive
errors-corrections strategies and practice so as to increase their learners’ interlanguage.
Hence, EFL language educators are obliged to correct EFL learners’ errors in order to
improve and motivate EFL learning. They should make students love the target language and
even speak it easily as their mother tongue or native language. At this point, creating a
friendly and pleasant classroom atmosphere is decisive to a maximum interaction among
students themselves, and students and teacher.

One should, however, not forget that learning a foreign language is a step-by-step
process, during which errors are to be expected in all stages of learning. Errors will not
disappear only because teacher pointed them out to the student. Fear of making errors
discourages students and makes them less receptive and responsive. In order to overcome
learner’s fear of making errors, a language educator should create a friendly and relaxed
atmosphere in language classroom.

Futhermore, one should not forget that error correction is a way to develop
competences of second or foreign language leaners. It means that error correction helps
2
students to clarify their understanding of the meaning and construction of the language. At the
same time, teacher’s role in error correction is to identify the errors and to correct them; to
give a feedback; to help students become more accurate in their use of language; to encourage
students and to help them revise the information and to self-correct.

Neverheless, one should accept that errors are the most difficult to correct, because a
language educator is not only providing a correction, he/she is also providing the knowledge
necessary to fill the student’s gap in understanding. Errors should always be corrected,
however, a language educator needs to be very careful about when and how to correct them.

As a rule, we’ve all been in the situation where we try to correct an error quickly, but
correction of errors has to be structured and formulated in a way that allows students to
recognise how to form the correct language, but without breaking the flow of the class.

On the one hand error correction is an essential step in realizing one’s own mistakes
and understanding the correct way to say something. On the other hand, it would be almost
impossible to correct every mistake in the EFL classroom, so we are left with the question of
what should be corrected and when. Thus, which mistakes should be corrected depends
mostly on the circumstances.

Generally teachers should offer corrections for mistakes using:

 The target language.

 Language previously taught (especially if it recent).
 Common mistakes (made by either the class or individuals).
 Mistakes that alter the meaning of a sentence.

1.1 Basic concepts about Error Correction

As described previously, errors are a crucial element of all learning and teachers’
perceptions of mistakes and errors are profoundly important in an educational environment as
they can influence learners’ perceptions of errors. However, attitudes towards error correction
in a foreign language differ greatly. In the SLA literature, support for correction can be found
in strands of theory such as Swain’s (1985, as cited in Sampson, 2012) output hypothesis,
which supports correction and argues that when learners receive direct metalinguistic
feedback on their output, it is used to confirm or disconfirm rules of form, which helps
acquisition.

However, Maicusi et al. (2000) claim that “the error is often considered an obstacle to
language learning”. For this reason, Krashen (as cited in Zhu, 2010) argues that “the learning
3
of a foreign language may be discouraged by the teacher who insists upon correction and
grammatical accuracy so it can raise the learners’ level of anxiety”. Although that may be
true, many experts support error correction and suggest that it is a valuable practice in foreign
language.

Truscott (1996, p. 529) defines error correction as “correction of grammatical errors

for the purpose of improving a student ability to write accurately” and argues that “the
researchers have paid insufficient attention to the side effects of grammar correction, such as
its effect on students’ attitudes, or the way it absorbs time and energy in writing classes”.
Therefore, he suggests that grammar correction in second language writing classes should be
abandoned because the researches show it to be ineffective and indicate that it has harmful
effects. In his article, Truscott (1996) expresses a strong disapproval of error correction and
any positive effect a written feedback given by language teachers to their learners may have.

Presently, it is believed that teacher expectations about their learners' abilities can
influence learners’ expectations. It would mean that learners do not have the chance to
express their attitudes and preferences towards error correction and learning in general.
Consequently, Truscott’s article (1996) sparked a debate among experts and researchers. “In
response to Truscott (1996), Ferris (1999) has offered some reasons for continuing to give
error correction” (Ashwell, 2000, p. 228). In her rebuttal to Truscott’s article, Ferris (1996)
asserts that learners want and expect correction, and that it should not be ignored.

Furthermore, in her recent research, Ferris (2004, p. 59-60) points to positive evidence
from various lines of research that offer support for error correction and rebuts Truscott’s
critical view of error correction by suggesting that “teachers prepare themselves to do error
correction competently, plan for it carefully in designing courses, and execute it faithfully and
consistently”. Equally important, she emphasizes that “teachers must balance learner
preferences with their own time and energy limitations”. Accordingly, Ferris (2004, p. 58-59)
asserts that teacher engagement as well as further research are necessary.

It is a well known fact that learning a foreign language is, naturally, more difficult than
a mother tongue. Grown-ups or students are advantaged as they have already acquired
complex structures while learning mother tongues, thus developing strategies for learning in
general. Still, students make errors. A logical explanation might be, that students, if faced
with a difficult task, are unable to concentrate or control their performanceon every aspect of
the target language, mother-tongue interference, overgeneralization or simply errors caused
by teaching materials or methods.

4
 In his book, Language and Language Learning, Nelson Brooks considered error to
have a relationship resembling that of sin to virtue: “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its
influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected.”(1960, p. 58).

First and foremost, Brooks suggested an instructional procedure that would help
language students produce error-free utterances: “The principal method of avoiding error in
language learning is to observe and practice the right model a sufficient number of times; the
principal way of overcoming it is to shorten the time lapse between the incorrect response and
the presentation once more of the correct model.”(1960, p. 60).

According to Harmer (1998), “correction helps students to clarify their understanding

of the meaning and construction of the language”. Teachers should be concerned how to
correct student as one way may be appropriate for one but may not be appropriate for another.
Sometimes students can correct themselves as the error is just a slip. Sometimes, students
need help of the teacher. He also refers that during this time teachers can ask to correct
another student. If the other students help out to solve the error, the student who made the
mistake may not feel humiliated. Sometimes students also prefer a gentle correction from the
teacher. Harmer (1998) also suggests that “it is important to praise students for their success
and to correct them for their failure”. In this way teacher's positive attitude can dramatically
change student's performance irrespective of their level and types of errors.

It is clear that, for error correction to be effective, learners need to know that they are
being corrected. The teacher, however, may not want to interrupt a task to correct a student if
the error is not negatively affecting communication or completion of the task. One common
solution is to make note of errors and then later in class put those errors up on the board.
Getting students to think about what the mistake is rather than just giving them the solution
bringsmore thinking and stronger learning, because students are actively involved in the error
correction.

1.2 Distinction between Errors and Mistakes

To begin with, mistake and error generally mean that something is done incorrectly or
wrong. Thus, they are synonyms. Although there is a difference between this two terms. One
of the most distinguished American linguist, Noam Chomsky (1986, p. 107), separated errors
from mistakes as two distinctive notions. He observed thet native speakers make many
mistakes when speaking. However, a native speaker has a perfect command of his language,
more precisely a perfect knowledge of grammatical rules, lexis and sound system. On one
hand, mistakes are a common thing, which can appear when somebody is speaking too fast,
5
thinks too quickly, or is nervous or tired. Generally, mistakes are caused by psychological
restrictions, memory lapses, distractions, hesitation, slips of the tongue, confusion etc. Errors,
on the other hand, are a systematically produced problem, caused by lack of knowledge about
the target language.

In linguistics, the definitions of terms ‘mistake’ and ‘error’ are rather diverse, even
though the term 'error' is often assumed to incorporate the notion of a 'mistake'. Furthermore,
Catalan (1997, p. 62) asserts that, “in the field of Psycholinguistics, mistakes in writing are
the result of a wrong functioning of the neuromuscular commands of the brain”. According to
Brown (1987), “a mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a
‘slip’, in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly”. Obviously, mistakes do not
result from the learner's lack of knowledge. Equally important, Brown (1987) clarifies that
“when attention is called to a mistake, they can be self-corrected".

Also, according to Lennon (1999, as cited in Maicusi, et al., 2000), “an error is a
linguistic form or combination of forms which in the same context and under similar
conditions of production would not be produced by the speakers’ native counterparts”. In
addition, Corder (1999, as cited in Tafani, 2009) explains that “errors reflect gaps in learners’
knowledge and that they occur because the learner does not know what is correct and what is
not”. For the same reason, second language (L2) errors are considered "unwanted forms"
(George, 1972, as cited in Maicusi, et al., 2000) and are regarded as “something negative
which must be avoided by any means”. Lastly, Brown (1987) argues that, “even if they are
pointed out to the learner, errors cannot be selfcorrected”.

Penny Ur (2002) also made a difference between these terms. Errors are consistent and
based on "mis-learned" generalizations. On the other hand, mistakes are occasional,
inconsistent slips. Language teachers perceive that both mistake and error done spontaneously
by the student.

Again, according to Brown (2000) “a mistake refers to a performance error, which is

made by language learners while producing a known structure incorrectly and comes out
through a slip of tongue”. He also referred to it as an "unsystematic guess". Mistakes can be
self corrected by native or non-native speakers but errors cannot be done so, because the
mistakes do not occur from insufficiency or incompetence, whereas, errors occur for
incompetence in the language.

Errors happen when a learner doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of the language. This
could occur when they have never been exposed the language and make an error because they
6
have no prior knowledge to refer to. These are known as attempts. Also, errors could come
from the language having been acquired incorrectly and as far as they are concerned they are
correct. These are fossilized errors.

Mistakes happen when a learner knows the language, but due to the speed of
conversation or other factors, they say or write something incorrect. These are often self-
corrected or ignored. They even happen to native speakers when we mispronounce a word or
mix up words in an idiom that we’ve used a million times. They are not something to be
punished. Mistakes should be dealt with completely differently. Mistakes are not due to lack
of knowledge. Therefore, if a language educator delays correction, the student will look at the
error and instantly know what the problem is. That’s why mistakes should be corrected the
moment they are made, even during a fluency activity. If a language educator correctly
identified the problem as a mistake, not an error, the correction should be quick and easy.

1.3 Types of Error Correction

The first thing that needs to be said is that there are many different types of error
correction. It is a well-known fact that some of these we are taught how to do, while some of
them come naturally. Some of them we would use in normal everyday situations. Certain
correction techniques work better in some situations than others. Some work better for one
type of error than for another. Language educators in the post-method era need to have an
extensive bank of error correction techniques that they can dip into whenever they feel it is
necessary. That is their responsibility as teachers, to have the knowledge to be able to employ
different techniques in different contexts.

There are essentially three basic forms of error correction:

 Self-correction
 Peer correction
 Profession correction

The most effective is considered to the the forst one. It is very important when
students realize and correct their own mistakes. The next most effective form is peer
correction. That is when students are able to recognize and correct their mistakes collectively.
Peer correction often helps to create a positive class atmosphere. Finally, there is correction of
errors by the language educator. It is an effective method, but it should be the least frequently
used form of correction.
7
 Error correction can be operationalized in terms of direct and indirect feedback:
“Assuming that WCF is effective in helping learners improve the accuracy of their writing
and in facilitating the acquisition process, a range of studies have investigated whether certain
types of WCF or combinations of different types are more effective than others. These studies
have most often categorized feedback as either direct (explicit) or indirect (implicit)
(Bitchener and Knoch, 2009, p. 198)”.

One of the constant debates among researchers is whether or not teachers should give
their learners direct or indirect feedback on their written errors: “a substantial amount of
teacher research is concerned with error correction, such as the types and extent of error
feedback and their effects on student accuracy. The only problem with direct feedback might
be the fact that it does not engage and challenge learners; therefore, it may not contribute to
language acquisition”. Ferris (1999, as cited in Lee, 2008) and Frodesen (1991, as cited in
Lee, 2008) assert that “direct feedback is used when teachers feel the error in question is
complex and beyond students’ ability to self-correct".

On the other hand, MacKey (2008) explains that it is believed that “indirect corrective
feedback promotes learner autonomy so teachers assume that indirect feedback should always
be used since it requires learners to monitor their own errors and to try to fix the errors on
their own”. Teacher feedback is the most common feedback, but Saito (1994) states that
“there are many ways of providing feedback in both L1 and L2 situations: teacher correction
(with comments), error identification, commentary, teacher-student conference, peer
correction, and self-correction".

In this subchapter, three main types of error correction will be discussed: teacher
correction, peer correction, and self-correction.

Firstly, teacher correction is frequently practiced by EFL teachers. Zacharias (2007)

remarks that “teachers are considered more competent in terms of language and knowledge,
and are therefore, considered more experienced in writing and providing feedback”. However,
Lee (2008:195) opines that “even though learners think that their teacher’s feedback serves
mainly to inform them of their errors, they do not realize the significance it has for their
writing”. However, learners seem to value teacher correction greatly, therefore, it is still
considered crucial in the classroom.

Secondly, peer correction allows a learner’s colleagues to assess the individual's

performance. It can, therefore, be a good way to engage learners and encourage them to read
their peers’ written compositions, provide comments and point out the mistakes.
8
Unquestionably, this classroom technique where learners correct each other, rather than the
teacher doing this has become greatly popular. Numerous practical benefits of peer response
for L2 writers have been suggested by Ferris (2003, p.70):

1. Students gain confidence, perspective, and critical thinking skills from being able to read
texts by peers on similar tasks.

2. Students get more feedback on their writing than they could get from the teacher alone.

3. Students get feedback from a more diverse audience bringing multiple perspectives.

4. Students receive feedback from non-expert readers on ways in which their texts are unclear
as to ideas and language.

5. Peer review activities build a sense of classroom activity.

Witbeck (1976, as cited in Saito, 1994) argues that “peer correction results in learners’
greater concern for achieving accuracy in written expression and creates a better classroom
atmosphere for teaching the correctional aspects of composition”. Similarly, Hansen and Liu
(2005, as cited in Lundstrom & Baker, 2008) emphasize that peer correction enhances
learners’ perception of the written work and gives them the chance to practice English in a
meaningful context while offering a “meaningful interaction with peers, a greater exposure to
ideas, and new perspectives on the writing process”.

Therefore, it may be assumed that peer correction makes learners feel like they are in
charge of their language acquisition, instead of blindly following their teachers’ written
feedback. Undeniably, creating opportunities for learners to provide constructive, specific
feedback, and responding to their peers’ written compositions, changes learners' perspective
on mistakes and errors, and helps them become responsible and autonomous learners. Above
all, that is the greatest gift language educators can give to their learners; the opportunity to
take charge of their own learning.

On the other side, Sultana (2009, p. 12-13) presents some of the problems with peer
correction:

1. Some students might feel reluctant to correct their friends’ errors because correcting
friends’ errors might harm their relationship.

2. Jeremy Harmer (2004) anticipates a possible problem with peer correction. The
student, after getting corrected by a peer, might feel that s/he is inferior to his peers.

9
 3. Students might feel reluctant about giving their work to their peers for correction
because they do not want their classmates to know about their errors

4. Sometimes students do not value their peers’ knowledge, and therefore they do not
want to revise their own written works based on their friends’ feedback. (Macdonca &
Johnson, 1992).

Without reservation, peer correction can make learners feel ill-equipped to undertake
the assessment and correct their peers’ written compositions. They may be reluctant to make
judgements regarding their peers’ writing. Sultana (2009) argues that the peer correction fails
when learners do not view their peers as authorities who could correct their errors.

Finally, Ferris (2003, p. 70) concludes that “researchers, teachers and student writers
themselves have identified potential and actual problems with peer response: writers do not
know what to look for in their peers’ writing, the comments are too harsh or complimentary,
and the peer feedback activities take up too much classroom time”.

Thirdly, self-correction technique encourages ESL and EFL learners to correct any
mistakes they have made in their written compositions on their own. This makes the
correction more difficult, but also more significant for the learners, as they correct their
mistakes for themselves.

Makino (1993:338) asserts that “self-correction is believed to encourage learner

involvement and responsibility while activating their linguistic competence”. That way, the
teacher encourages learners to accept responsibility for their writing. Since learners need to
correct their own mistakes, they become less reliant on the teacher, which in turn helps
language acquisition.

Above all, self-correction encourages independence from the teacher and gives the
student more motivation and confidence. On the downside, students may not understand how
to self-correct or be clear on the correct model. This could lead to even more errors and the
reinforcement of existing errors. Finally, Semke (1984, p. 202) argues that “self-correction is
the least effective approach in terms of both achievement and attitudes when compared to the
other types of error feedback”.

As has been noted, even though teacher correction is the main feedback activity, peer
correction and self-correction can be used successfully in classroom in order to enhance
learners’ writing practice. Witbeck (1976, as cited in Saito, 1994:65) emphasizes that “if

10
learners knew how important peer correction and self-correction are, they would be able to
cope with errors without depending on a teacher”.

1.4 The necessity of Error Correction in EFL classroom

It is undeniable that one of the main dilemmas for teachers is error correction. It is
always tricky to know when and if to correct students. The danger of over-correcting is that
students will lose motivation. The other extreme is to let the conversation flow and not to
correct any error. There are times when this is appropriate, but most students want to have
some of their errors corrected, as it gives them a basis for improvement.

Error correction is seen as a form of feedback given to learners on their language use.
No language educator can deny the fact that correcting the errors made by students during
speaking or writing is one of the most difficult tasks in language acquisition. Thus, every
language educator should consider some the following issues about error correction: the
difference between a mistake and an error, how much correction should be made, at what
phases the teacher should correct the error and how the teacher can correct the learner without
de-motivating him/her.

The process of learning a language is a long and challenging one. During this process
a learner will surely make errors. In other words, a language educator should take countless
tiny steps in order to help to become a fluent speaker from a student who is not speaking at all
a language. The manner in which teachers correct students plays a vital role in whether
students become confident in their usage or become intimidated.

Students make errors at various stages of their language learning. The words which
sound the same in both mother language and target language but meaning is different may
cause the mistakes. Jeremy Harmer names these types of mistakes as "false Friend". Like the
Spanish word "assistir" means "attend" in English but not "assist" (Jeremy Harmer, 1998).
There are also some errors that may occur because of grammatical dissimilarities between
students' first language and target language. For example, Japanese students learning English
frequently have problems with article usage.

According to Sampson (2012), “errors in speech are fleeting and often being ignored
by interlocutors for the sake of comfortable and fluent interaction, whereas errors in written
work are more permanent, and can create a negative effect on the reader”. While it is unlikely
that feedback alone is responsible for language improvement over a complete course, Ferris

11
(2002, as cited in Hyland, 2003) asserts that it is a highly important factor. Therefore, the
teacher’s role in corrective feedback seems to be of vital importance.

Jeremy Harmer also points out that errors are not only made for the interference of
mother language but there can be some 'developmental' errors as well. Students sometimes
overgeneralize rules, like students may use 'ed' for past form for all words, as in go- goed.
Whatever the mistakes are, these errors and mistakes have some positive and constructive
aspects and also point out that the students are actively participating in the language learning
process.

It seems that the most difficult task is to have the right balance of error correction.
There are some evident signs that tell us whether we’ve got it right or wrong:

 Students are losing their fluency when they speak because they are scared of making
mistakes;
 Students show with their facial expressions or body language that they are not open to
correction;
 Feedback after a speaking or writing task menas mainly error correction, with a lack of
suggesting more complex language, making encouraging comments etc;
 Students make many false friend erors;
 The professor does not consider which errors could lead to miscommunication before
correcting them.

According to a research made by L. K. Lim in 1990, not only do the learners want their
errors corrected, but they also prefer such correction to be comprehensive, rather than
selective.

Although learners generally want their errors corrected, they also have preferences in
terms of how much emphasis each error type should attract. The majority of the learners
believe that errors relating to organization of ideas should receive the highest attention for
correction.

Grammatical errors rank next in order of preference for correction, with more than 96% of
the learners indicating that this error type deserved high attention, or some attention.
Learner’s preference for error correction shows that grammatical error is followed closely by
vocabulary errors, while pronunciation errors comes after it in order of priority. Receiving the
least priority for correction are spealing and pronunciation errors which the majority of the
learners would like to be given little or no attention.

12
 Lim’s results of the opinions of learners on which error categories should receive more
attention than others in terms of correction represent a very interesting case.

Before correcting student’s errors, teachers need to consider whether the erors should be
corrected at all, and, if so, why (Gorbet, 1974, p. 55). When students are not able to recognize
thier own errors, they need the assistance of someone more proficient in the language than
they are (George, 1972, Corder, 1973, and Allwright, 1975). A recent survey on college
students’ attitudes towards error correction reveals that the students not only want to be
corrected, but also they wish to be corrected more than teachers feel they should be (Cathcart
and Olsen, 1976).

According to Gorbet (1974, p. 19), “perhaps the most difficult challenge of language
teaching is determening when to correct and when to ignore student errors”. Some language
educators think that producing errors is natural and necessary phenomenon in language
learning, and they recommend that teachers accept a wide margin of deviance from so-called
“standars” forms and structures of the target language.

Foreign language educators generally agree that tolerating some oral and written errors
helps learning communicate more confidently in a foreihn language. That is because language
learners take many risks in producing incorrect utterances when communicating, teachers
need to consider whether or not their corrective techniques instill a feeling of success in their
students.

Correcting student errors is necessary in order to help students improve their skills.
Teachers must know their students in order to gauge what kind of error correction should be
used. Some students are very form-focused and really want explicit correction; some students
are less form-focused and will feel criticized by too much correction. It is a risk a teacher
takes when correcting students in oral communication, that the student will be reluctant to try
again in the future. Teachers must foster an environment in the classroom that is forgiving of
mistakes and encouraging of risks.

1.5 Conclusion to Chapter 1

To draw the conclusion, one can say that error correction and its importance in the
foreign language classroom have received considerable attention during the past decades.
According to Corder (1967), correcting learners’ errors is substantial in three different ways:
“First, they tell the teacher about the progress of the learner, and therefore what remains to be
learnt. Second, they supply evidence of how a language is acquired and what strategies the

13
learner employs in learning a language. Thirdly, they are indisputable to the learning process
because making errors is regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn”.

From these facts, one may conclude that corrective feedback is important in EFL
teaching and learning. There are numerous studies that investigate error correction methods
since implementing error correction properly can be challenging even for experienced
language educators. Active student participation and engagement in corrective practice is
necessary in the EFL learning. However, very little is known about what actually happens in
the classroom when teachers respond to errors.

In foreign language learning, error correction has become one of the important
teaching processes. But actually, few teachers know a lot about error analysis and some
related theories. They often take so negative attitudes toward errors. They could not tolerate
any errors and tend to correct them as soon as they could find any. As a result, although they
think they have been working hard enough and spend much time and energy working on error
correction, their effort is not effective. On the contrary, the students often feel upset, because
they have found that there is a great gap between themselves and their teachers in dealing
with errors and understanding of error correction.

Traditionally, language educators correct all the errors made by students. However,
recent trends of language teaching defend that teachers need not correct all the errors right
after they are made. Teachers' role is crucial in developing the skills of a student. However, as
we all know, excessive error correction could frustrate students and even reduce the
motivation of learning the language. Therefore, it is really important for teachers to have
"good timing" and use "appropriate" correction strategies during error correction. Actually,
error correction and corrective feedback, which are traditionally thought to be the duty of a
teacher, should not be classified as such. These should not be put under any single person's
list of responsibility, but should be everyone's responsibility, namely, the teachers as well as
the students.

Thus, good mistake-management enables teachers to continue to maintain a

professional position in front of students, colleagues and authorities alike. It is clear that
teaching must be flexible enough to help both groups: the ones who look for freedom within
the language, who want to experimen and the ones who feel that experimentation might lead
to frustration of too many mistakes and even to incomprehensibility, who like the security of
being right. To sum it up, learning is a mixture of gaining confidence and being adventurous.

14