Exploring the Gap Between Teachers’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error Correction

Abstract

For successful learning, meeting the expectations of teachers and language learners is indispensable. Teachers should be aware of what learners think and feel about what and how they desire to learn. Taking this into consideration, this study attempts to identify the preferences and expectations of adult EFL learners as to error correction. The research was carried out with 9 English teachers and 150 university students studying English at preparatory classes of a Turkish state university. Data were collected through observation, interviews with teachers and learners as well as a questionnaire that was conducted to both teachers and learners. The data has been analysed to identify which strategies the students perceived to be the most effective. Although it is hard to generalize this study into a larger context due to the number of the students involved, the findings provide valuable information for a better understanding of learners’ preferences for error correction. The paper indicates that differences arise exclusively on the issues such as the necessity, frequency, deliverance and effectiveness of error correction at different proficiency levels and classrooms. The findings show that although teachers and students agree on some strategies such as immediate feedback on recurring oral and written errors, they tend to be incongruous about a more frequent and immediate corrective response from the teacher as well as the learners’ role and responsibilities in correcting themselves and their peers. It is concluded that there is evident divergence of attitudes among teachers and students on how teaching practices should be tailored to meet students’ needs and preferences. In this context, the identification and moderation of different expectations will practically benefit both sides, reinforcing classroom teaching and learning.

Keywords

• error correction,mismatches,learner preferences

Öğretmenler ve Öğrencilerin Hata Düzeltme Tercihleri Arasındaki Boşluğu Keşfetme

Öz

Başarılı bir öğrenme için, öğretmenlerin ve dil öğrenenlerin beklentilerini karşılamak vazgeçilmezdir. Öğretmenler, öğrencilerin neyi ve nasıl öğrenmek istedikleri hakkında ne düşündüklerini ve ne hissettiklerini bilmelidirler. Bunu dikkate alarak, bu çalışma yetişkin EFL öğrencilerinin hata düzeltme konusundaki tercihlerini ve beklentilerini belirlemeye çalışır. Araştırma, 9 İngilizce öğretmeni ve bir Türk devlet üniversitesinin, hazırlık sınıflarında İngilizce okuyan 150 üniversite öğrencisiyle gerçekleştirildi. Veriler gözlem yoluyla toplanmış, öğretmenler ve öğrencilerle yapılan görüşmelerin yanı sıra hem öğretmenlere hem de öğrencilere yönelik bir anket yapılmıştır. Veriler, öğrencilerin hangi hata düzeltme stratejilerini en etkili bulduklarını belirlemek için analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmayı, katılan öğrenci sayısı nedeniyle daha geniş bir bağlamda genelleştirmek zor olsa da, bulgular, öğrencilerin hata düzeltme tercihlerinin daha iyi anlaşılması için değerli bilgiler sağlar. Bu makale, farklılıkların yalnızca farklı yeterlilik seviyelerinde ve sınıflarda gerekliliği, sıklığı, uygulanması ve hata düzeltmenin etkinliliği gibi konularda ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, öğretmen ve öğrencilerin, tekrarlanan sözlü ve yazılı hatalara ilişkin anında geri bildirim gibi bazı stratejiler üzerinde hemfikir olmalarına rağmen, öğretmenlerin daha sık ve yanlışları derhal düzeltmelerinin yanı sıra, öğrencilerin kendileri ve akranlarını düzeltmedeki rolleri ve sorumlulukları konusunda uyuşmazlıklar olduğunu göstermektedir. Öğrencilerin ihtiyaçlarını ve tercihlerini karşılamak için uygulamaların öğrencilere nasıl uyarlanması gerektiği konusunda, öğretmen ve öğrenciler arasında belirgin bir farklılığının olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, farklı beklentilerin tanımlanması ve ölçülmesi sınıftaki öğretme ve öğrenme faaliyetlerini güçlendirerek, pratik olarak her iki tarafa da fayda sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hata düzeltme,uyuşmazlık,öğrenci tercihleri

Kaynakça

1. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principle of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
2. Cathcart, R. L. & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 76. Crymes, Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
3. Chenoweth, N. A., R. R. Day, A. E. Chun, and s. Luppescu. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies of Second Language Acquisition 6, 79-87.
4. Chun, A., Day, R., Chenoweth, A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of non-native conversations. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 537-547.
5. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161-169.
6. Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Diab, R. L. (2006). Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom: Comparing instructor and student preferences, English Teaching Forum Vol. 44(1), 2-13, 38.
8. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal 1, 3-18.

9. Ferris, Dana R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996), Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
10. Ferris, Dana R. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?), Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
11. Green, J.M. (1993) Student attitudes toward communicative and non-communicative activities: do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? Modern Language Journal. 77(1), 1-10.
12. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.
14. Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal. vol. 72 (3), 125-132.
15. Katayama, A. (2006). Perceptions of JFL students toward correction of oral errors. In K.
16. Bradford-watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.) JALT 2005 Conference Proceedings. Tokio: JALT.
17. Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL Student’s Preferences toward Correction of Classroom Oral Errors, Asian EFL Journal, vol. 9. No. 4: Conference Proceedings.
18. Kern, R.G. 1995. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning, Foreign Language Annals Vol. 28(1), 71-92.
19. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
20. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991) Language-learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. English Language Teaching Journal 45(2), 98-107.
21. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: issues in written response, in: Barbara Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Ludwig, J. (1983) Attitudes and expectations: a profile of female and male students of college French, German, and Spanish. Modern Language Journal 67(3), 217-27.
23. McCargar, D.F. (1993) Teacher and student role expectations: cross-cultural differences and Implications. Modern Language Journal 77(2), 192-207.
24. McDonough, S.M. (1995) Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London. Edward Arnold.
25. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: The learners’ view. In K.D. Bikarm (Ed.), Communication and learning in classroom community, pp. 176- 190, Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
26. Nunan, D. (1988) The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge University Press.
27. Nunan, D. (1995) Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 133-58.
28. Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preference. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
29. Schulz, R.A. (1996). Focus on form in the Foreign language classroom: Student’s and Teacher’s views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 17-21.
30. Schulz, R.A.(2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Columbia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 56-75.
31. Willing, K. (1988) Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
32. VanPatten, B. (1992). Second-language acquisition research and foreign language teaching, part 2. ADFL Bulletin, 23, 23-27.
33. Yorio, C.A. (1986) Consumerism in second language learning and teaching. Canadian Modern Language Review 42(3), 668-87.
34. Ziahosseiny, S. M. (2005). A contrastive analysis of Persian and English & error analysis. Tehran, Iran: Nashr-e Vira.