Error Correction: A Bridge to Grammatical Accuracy in L2 Writing

Ester D. Jimena, Central Philippine University, Philippines Herwindy Maria Tedjaatmadja, Petra Christian University, Indonesia

Meng Tian, Shanxi Teachers University, China

To many scholars, error correction plays a significant role in improving learners’

accuracy in language learning especially in L2 writing, which is grammatically

demanding. In terms of teachers’ roles in giving correction, the popular

misunderstanding overemphasizes teachers’ responsibility in carrying out the task

while ignoring learners’ roles in the process of error correction. In fact, learners can

make more progress when they are given chances to respond to correction and

contribute to the process. However, the decisive job of selecting the appropriate

method lies in the hands of the teachers. Teachers need to consider two important

factors, learners’ levels and attitudes, which the paper argues to be the basis of

teachers’ pedagogic decision in employing the most beneficial error correction

methods in L2 writing. In particular, the paper establishes the link between learners’

levels and attitudes and the three correction methods: coded feedback, direct

correction and reformulation. Teachers are encouraged to weigh and analyze the

advantages and disadvantages of these methods, and adapt their suitability to their

teaching context.

Introduction

Writing has been one of the most difficult skills for learners to develop. Being a recursive

1

process, it takes several times for learners to revise their writing before submitting their

final draft (White & McGovern, 1994). During the course, they need feedback and

comments to facilitate them to compose an essay with minimal errors as well as maximum

accuracy and clarity; hence, written feedback is quite essential (Creme & Lea, 1997; Ennis,

1996; Ferris, 2002; Harmer, 2001; Krashen, 1987; Kroll, 2001). However, teachers often

feel that their effort in giving feedback to correct learners’ work is not effective. Some of

learners keep on committing the same errors, and teachers realize that it is an arduous way

for learners to achieve accuracy in writing, which is grammatically demanding (Littlewood,

1995; Stern, 1992). Therefore, teachers should realize the vital role of error correction and

treat it carefully.

Error correction is ‘a response either to the content of what a student has produced or to the

form of the utterance’ (Richards and Lockharts, 1996: 188). When the focus is on forms, it

is supposed to help learners to reflect on the wrong forms and finally produce right forms

(Krashen, 1987). More specifically, as Truscot (1996, cited in Ferris, 2003: 42) states, ‘the

correction of grammatical errors can help students improve their ability to write

accurately’. Stern (1992: 51) includes it as ‘a part of the grammar learning processes. It is

quite obvious that errors are integral parts of language learning and error correction has a

significant role in improving learners’ writing accuracy. However, there are many issues

which need careful consideration such as teachers’ and learners’ roles in error correction,

what errors to correct, how much, who, and how. In addition, learners’ level and attitudes

need to be taken into consideration. Hence, error correction can be very complicated since

all these factors will influence its efficacy.

2

Teachers’ roles in error correction

Language teachers hold the authority to correct learners’ errors, especially regarding the

fact that the learners value and expect teachers’ feedback on their written work. Thus,

language teachers play several important roles as follows:

Judges

As the one being authoritative in the classroom, teachers have the right to set the standard

of what the learners have to achieve in the writing course (Creme and Lea, 1997: 44; Scott,

1996: 120). However, learners’ level has to be taken into consideration so that they are

capable of achieving the expectation (Ferris, 2003). Thus, teachers have to adjust their

expectation and teaching method to suit the learners’ level. Teachers should also identify

common errors learners make so that they have some thought of what to do next with their

teaching methodology (Leech, 1994).

Designers

As designers, teachers should always concern about what is best and suitable for learners.

This way, they should update themselves with what is going on inside their classroom, to

be able to make right pedagogic decision to apply particular error correction methods.

Preferably, teachers are advocated to exchange information and experience with other

colleagues to expand their insight, and hopefully, to get new ideas on error correction

methods.

3

Scholars

In order to provide correction to learners, teachers must act as scholars, who are equipped

with knowledge of the target language, such as grammar, vocabulary and so forth to enable

them to provide correction to learners’ writing (Leech, 1994). In addition, teachers have to

put themselves on learners’ shoes. For instance, by understanding the source of errors and

implementing the “process of simplification” so that they are able to transfer their

knowledge in such a clear and simple way to learners at different proficiency level (Leech,

1994).

Motivators

Learners’ affective side also plays important roles in enhancing their language progress.

Motivation is a powerful desire which drives learners to accomplish more. Generally, it is

unpleasant experience to be corrected and some of learners may get frustrated and

demotivated because they might not know what to do. That is why teachers have to inspire

and convince learners that teachers welcome their questions and worries. Positive

comments on their work are also accommodating to motivate learners to pursue more

(Wright, 1987; Richards & Lockhart, 1996).

Trainers

Teachers have to boost learners’ confidence and train them to be more independent in their

learning. Teachers are encouraged to give learners more chances to have peer feedback

session so that they will go through the process of correcting others’ work. Teachers should

also help learners to identify their individual errors; thus, they have to pay more attention to

4

those errors. This way, learners will be equipped to learn how to self correct their writing

(Ferris, 2002; Xiang, 2004).

Learners’ roles in error correction

Teachers’ effort will be less effective unless learners want to give right responses. Thus,

learners have to involve themselves in the error correction process by playing the following

roles:

Active participants in the class

Having good interaction between teachers and learners is crucial to establish conducive

learning atmosphere. It is not an easy task for teachers to identify and acknowledge each

language problem of their learners; thus learners’ cooperation is needed. They are expected

to help teachers set expectations of the classroom, possibly by expressing their problems in

writing and how they want to be corrected. Thus, they help teachers to make the right

pedagogic decision on error correction methods.

Attentive monitors of their own progress

Learners are encouraged to monitor their progress by paying more attention to their

common errors. Learners can take notes of their errors and correction, for instance, on their

notebook or error awareness sheet. Then, they can always review what they have read so

that they can ask their teachers for help or further practices.

Autonomous learners

Learners’ progress depends not only on the teachers’ effort, but also on their own. So,

5

learners need to be engaged in the error correction process because it will enhance their

language acquisition. This step will lead them to be autonomous learners that are able to

self correct their written work (Gower, Phillips, & Walter, 1995: 165; Xiang, 2004).

Error correction methods

Knowing teachers’ and learners’ roles in giving feedback to learners’ writing is only the

beginning to ensure correction efficiency. It is crucial for teachers to weigh the advantages

and disadvantages of correction methods according to the learners’ real situation. The

following will be devoted to the explanation of coded feedback and direct correction.

Furthermore, the necessity of adopting reformulation for the sake of learners’ improvement

in writing skills is also explored.

Coded feedback VS direction correction

Among the methods used in error correction, direct and indirect feedback constitute the

most important dichotomy (Ferris 2002). Direct feedback, as the title notes, requires the

teacher’s responsibility to offer the correct forms to learners, whereas indirect feedback

involves both teachers and learners in the error correction process, in which teachers

indicate the errors and it’s learners who correct them (Ferris 2002). Coded feedback and

direct correction are two strategies which can respectively reflect the main features of

indirect and direct feedback.

Coded feedback ‘does not only indicate where errors are located, but also types of mistakes

by using a correcting code’ (Bartram and Walton, 1991: 84). In real pedagogical situation,

6

the codes are designed according to learners’ common errors as a class group. In real

pedagogical situation, the codes are designed according to learners’ common errors as a

class group. In our teaching experience our error codes serve to indicate learners’ common

errors in grammar, vocabulary and spelling. Direct correction, as one common form of

direct feedback, is implemented through underlining the errors and providing the right

forms in the learners’ written work. The definitions show that both of the correction

methods indicate learners’ errors but differ in how to indicate errors and who to correct

them.

Coded feedback makes correction much neater due to the simple and systematical codes

(Harmer, 2001). Besides, this method involves learners in the self-correction process and

helps them learn more effectively (Gower, Phillips & Walters, 1995). Meanwhile, it arouses

learners’ responsibility in correction and improves their writing accuracy in the long run

(Ferris 2002). However, since codes just cover the common errors and limited, those

individual errors may be ignored. This is quite understandable since ‘errors are usually

made by individual students’ (Gower, Phillips & Walters, 1995:168). In addition, coded

feedback is threatening and hard to be self-corrected for low proficiency learners (Ferris,

2002). Also, when coded feedback is used, one point teachers and learners must bear in

mind is that they must understand what the codes mean, be consistent with and accustomed

to the codes (Bartram & Walton 1991; Ferris 2002). Otherwise chaos may occur due to the

misinterpretation of the codes.

Direct correction gives learners right answers beside the marked errors, learners especially

7

those with low proficiency find direction correction less threatening and thus helpful before

they have acquired the ability to correct their own errors (Ferris 2002). Our learners all

looked relaxed when we required them to rewrite their writing marked with direct

correction. They seldom asked us questions about how to correct, but learners who got

coded feedback looked confused about how to correct and asked for a lot of help from their

classmates and teachers. Nevertheless, the dangers of its spoon-feeding effect are that

learners overlook their own role in the correction process and may become passive (Hedge

2000). Although teachers can let learners revise their writing, learners can just mechanically

copy the ready-made correction without figuring out the reasons. The learning results

through direct correction are worse than coded feedback to some extent.

To make full use of the advantages of coded feedback and direction correction and avoid

their disadvantages, teachers can consider combining them together. For instance, coded

feedback is too limiting because not all errors are meant to be coded and some errors are

too complicated for codes, thus direct correction is necessary to create the convenience.

Reformulation as a supplementary method

When giving feedback to learners’ written work, teachers normally focus on correcting the

wrong use of basic vocabulary, grammatical forms, spelling and punctuation to make the

written work acceptable. However, Cohen (1990: 117) claims that the evaluation is ‘partial’

since it mainly focuses on the ‘low-level’ accuracy, but ignores the ‘higher-level’ style,

such as appropriate word dictions, native-like organizations of the whole writing. That is to

say, learners who receive only corrective feedback still need to go a long way to improve

8

their target language writing style. Actually, learners with a certain level in the target

language have the intention to produce natural target language writing and have a stronger

desire for evaluation on this aspect. They are not satisfied with their errors being corrected,

but also want to know how to rework their expression to make it sound natural (Bartram &

Walton, 1991).

Reformulation, as another form of indirect feedback, can meet learners’ need. Cohen (1990)

suggests that learners should revise their writing until its well formed in grammar and

mechanics, then reconstruct it to make it reflect what they mean to say based on a teacher’s

or a native speaker’s comment, and finally learners can ask a competent native speaker to

reformulate the entire reconstructed writing or part of it. Learners are expected to be

exposed to native-like expression for the same idea and thus improve their writing skills as

they compare the reconstructed and the reformulated version. Also, the personalized

feedback can motivate learners to pay much attention to and benefit form it.

Nevertheless, reformulation is primarily for intermediate and advanced L2 learners because

they have acquired the ability to learn form it. And the reformulator should be reminded not

to twist the original meaning of the writing so that learners can really recognize the gap

between their acceptable writing and the stylistic one produced by a native speaker. For

learners who can not find a native reformulator, they may ask their nonnative L2 teachers

with high proficiency to do the job. However, it is predictable that there is still a gap of

realizing some of the stylistic subtleties of the language between a non-native teacher and a

native speaker (Cohen, 1990). So, teachers should try to offer learners chances to know

9

some native speakers or help them ask for help through the pen-pal channel through

internet. Of course, teachers should make great efforts to improve their L2 level to help

learners as much as possible.

Developing learners’ positive attitudes towards correction in L2 writing

In order to achieve an effective error correction method, it is very important for teachers to

have a clear understanding of the nature of errors. As Corder (1967, cited in Cook, 1995:

22) explains that errors are learners’ way of testing their hypothesis about the nature of the

language they are learning; hence it should be viewed with openness and acceptance

especially during their early stage of language learning. As Krashen (1987: 74) says that

they are inevitable and plentiful as learners learn and experiment the use of the language

they are learning. In short, errors are inherent to learners’ works and the feedback teachers

give to their works play a vital role in developing their writing skills. As Raimes (1998)

points out the tremendous impact of feedbacks and their potential to influence students’

attitude in writing, it is, therefore, necessary for teachers to reflect on the manner for which

corrections are given. More importantly, students’ responses to these corrections should be

taken into consideration. Error correction touches not only the cognitive skills, but also the

affective aspects of language learning, which include feelings and attitudes (see Bates, Lane

and Lange, 1993: Krashen, 1987; Arnold and Brown, 1999; & Cathcart and Olsen, 1976,

cited in Ellis, 1994).

However, the following negative reactions frequently manifest in L2 writing correction,

which need to be understood by writing teachers:

10

Discouragement

Learners who lack the confidence about their L2 knowledge will likely to be discouraged

with correction feedback. This attitude comes from fear of not knowing what to do with the

correction given by the teacher, especially when corrections are given without explanation.

Also, comments like “what’s this?” or “I don’t understand what you are saying here?” are

harmful to learners’ self-esteem.

Resistance

It is based on the learners’ belief of what is right and wrong. In terms of language learning,

it depends on their level of proficiency and previous knowledge. Therefore, it is a must for

teachers to know learners’ level and previous knowledge to avoid this reaction.

Passiveness

This is a difficult reaction to deal with, but with the right and businesslike approach it can

be overcome in due time. There could be various reasons for this attitude and they require

teachers’ generosity to spare their time and effort in order to identify them.

Given these negative reactions, the effectiveness of a particular error correction depends on

its implementation. Both teachers and learners have to be willing to embrace the journey of

transforming the negative reactions to positive outlook. Teachers must provide the

necessary assistance. The following are our suggestions:

11

Conduct an error correction orientation/workshop before implementing a particular

method. The orientation will familiarize the learners with the method of correction to be

used. This will also give them the chance to see for themselves if they could cope with the

chosen correction method. In the orientation or workshop, give the learners the chance to

evaluate the method based on their capacity to self-correct, that is, for example, coded

feedback which requires self-correction. The important thing here is for the learners to

build up their confidence in responding to their own errors through the error correction

method used in class.

Encourage learners to keep an error correction notebook. The notebook will contain

error entries and corrections made. This will help learners monitor their errors and review

the corrections made. The relevance of the error correction notebook will depend on how

the teacher will use this in helping learners become independent. Perhaps the teacher could

check the notebook once in a while or may complement it with a journal entry after two or

three writing assignments. This will give learners the chance to reflect on their errors and

hopefully avoid or lessen them.

Give positive comments and acknowledge learners’ progress in L2 writing.

This self-evident suggestion touches on learners’ motivation and willingness to improve. A

teacher’s response of ‘This is wrong! Rewrite it!’ will not encourage a learner, but rather

will discourage him/her. On the other hand, a comment like, “Do you mean this?’ or “This

is not clear, perhaps you would like to revise it. What do you think?’ or something like ‘I

like what you’ve written here.’ Or ‘this is interesting’ and so on will boost learners’ morale.

12

The positive comments will neutralize the negative emotions created by the corrections on

grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. In short, the feedback should be for clarification of the

learners’ ideas and meanings rather than for confrontation purposes.

Lastly, give remedial session highlighting learners’ recurring errors to develop

learners’ awareness of common errors. This is face saving for learners whose errors will be

highlighted because it will console them that they are not alone in making those errors. Just

make sure that no names are mentioned when highlighting the errors.

References:

Arnold, J. and H. D. Brown (1999). “A Map of the Terrain” in J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in

Language Learning. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

 Bartram, M. & R. Walton (1991) Correction. London: LanguageTeaching Publications.

 Bates, L., J. Lange, & E. Lange (1993) Writing Clearly. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Cohen, A. D. (1990) Language Learning. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers

Cook, V. (1995) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.Hampshire: The Macmilla

Press Ltd.

Creme, P. and M. R. Lea. (1997). Writing at University. Philadelphia: Open University

Press.

Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

13

 Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Ferris, D. R. (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Michigan:

The University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003) Response to Student Writing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Gower, R., D. Phillips & S. Walters (1995) Teaching Practice Handbook. Oxford:

Macmillan Education

Harmer, J. (1998) How to Teach English. Essex: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson

Education Ltd.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1987) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Hertfordshire: Prentice-hall International Ltd.

Leech, G. (1994). Students’ Grammar – Teachers’ Grammar – Learners’ Grammar in

Grammar and The Language teachers, edited by Martin Bygate, Alan Tonkyn and

Eddie Williams. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

 Littlewood, W. (1995). Writing and reading as a joint journey through ideas. Anthology

Series 35: 421-434.

Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teachingof Writing,

TESOL Quarterly, 25/3: 407–430. 

14

Scott, V. M. (1996) Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. New York: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

 White, R. and D. McGovern. (1994) Writing. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International

(UK) Ltd.

Wright, T. (1987) Roles of Teachers & Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Xiang, W. (2004) Encouraging self monitoring in writing by Chinese Students, ELT

Journal, 58/3: 238-246

Biographical Statements:

Ester D. Jimena is an English lecturer at Central Philippine University, Philippines. Her

research interests are error analysis, reflective teaching, motivation, and learners’ autonomy

in language teaching.

Herwindy Maria Tedjaatmadja is an English lecturer at Petra Christian University,

Indonesia. Her present research interests are language learning strategies, EFL writing and

language teaching methodology.

Meng Tian is an English lecturer at Foreign Languages Faculty in Shanxi Teachers

University, China. Her main research interests are group dynamics, fluency and creative

writing.

15