Myanmar EFL Teachers and Adult Learners Preferences on Oral Error CorrectionKhaing Mu Mu Zin, Steve McKee, Ph DShinawatra University, ThailandKhinezin99@gmail.com, mckeesteve@hotmail.comAbstractError correction is vital for oral communication skill improvement. However, the preferences between the teachers and adult learners on oral error correction are different and this affects the learners ability to improve their oral communication. The purpose of this study was to investigate preferences of Myanmar teachers and adult learners on the following aspects: 1) the necessity of oral error correction on oral skill improvement, 2) the frequency of error correction, 3) the appropriate time of correction, 4) the types of error that need to be treated and 5) the delivering agent of error correction. This study was based on quantitative method. The subjects were eighty-three adult learners who were studying at two private language schools and twelve Myanmar teachers who taught English language skills in Yangon, Myanmar. The instruments for data collection included a questionnaire for teachers and adult learners preferences. The data was quantitatively analyzed. The results revealed both the teachers and students certainly agreed that students errors should be corrected. Besides, the vast majority of the teachers believed that the most effective corrective feedback was repetition while learners preferred explicit corrective feedback.Keywords: Oral Error Correction, Myanmar EFL Teachers and Adult Learners Preferences, Corrective Feedback

Acknowledgement I would like to express my genuine gratitude to my advisor Dr. Steve McKee for his precious guidance and sincere supports. Next, I would like to express my great appreciation to Dr.Amporn Sa-ngiamvibool and assistant professor Catherine Ownes for being my committee members. Additionally, I am really thankful to all of the participants in my research, my family and friends who encouraged me for my thesis.Introduction It cannot be denied that learning a foreign language is an incremental process, and errors cannot be avoided entirely in all stages of learning. The role of grammar instruction and error correction in language learning process has become a controversial issue in how to deal with learners errors. According to Hendrickson (1978), he questioned whether the errors should be corrected or not. Some researchers assumed that correcting learners errors can cease learners fluency development in their speaking, and learners can find difficulties improving their target language. Krashen (1982) stated that teaching grammar should not be needed because it can delay the second language (L2) learning process. On the other hand, I personally believe that error correction can help L2 acquisition for the learners if errors are certainly treated under the appropriate situations and conditions. Other researchers do not agree regarding the correction of errors regardless of the situation and conditions. This is because correcting the errors immediately can hinder learners fluency, and learners can become unmotivated to continue their sentences. As Allwright and Bailey (1991) stated, teachers must provide learners with appropriate corrective feedback as well as affective support to secure effective error

correction. When learners make mistakes, they need to have corrective feedback to improve their cognitive language development. As Allwright & Bailey (1991) mentioned, if teachers do not provide the corrective feedback after a wrong error that a learner makes in a speaking activity, it is possible that other learners (including the speaker) will believe the incorrect form to be correct. It is generally assumed that by making the learners aware of the mistakes and by correcting the errors, the learners will assimilate the corrections they receive and not make such kind of mistakes again in the future. It is important that teachers need to be flexible and careful concerning the possible negative effects of error correction that can delay students fluency improvement. It is crucial for the teachers to discover the appropriateness of error correction in individual situations. The certain reason for this is the fact that there is not only one best technique for error correction (Doff, 1993, p.190). Purpose Of The StudyThe purpose of the study was1) To investigate the teachers preferences on oral error correction, particularly regarding the necessary of error correction, the frequency of error correction, the appropriate time of error correction, the types of error that need to be treated, and the delivering agent of error correction. 2) To investigate the beginner level Myanmar adult learners preferences on oral error correction, particularly regarding the necessary of error correction, the frequency of error correction, the appropriate time of error correction , the types of error that need to be treated, and the delivering agent of error correction.Research QuestionsThis study addressed the following research questions(1) What are the teachers preferences on oral error correction, particularly regarding the necessary of error correction, the frequency of error correction, the appropriate time of error correction, the types of error that need to be treated, and the delivering agent of error correction?(2) What are the adult ESL learners preferences on oral error correction, regarding the necessary of error correction, the frequency of error correction, the appropriate time of correction, the types of error that need to be treated and the delivering agent of error correction? Literature Review There have been numerous definitions of error in language learning process. According to Cambridge Online Dictionary of British English explained the definition of error: a mistake (Cambridge Dictionary Online). On the other hand, mistake is defined in detail: an action, decision or judgment which produces an unwanted or unintentional result (Cambridge Dictionary Online). In the Oxford Dictionary, error is exactly defined as a mistake whereas mistake is significantly explained as an act or judgment that is misguided or wrong (Oxford Online Dictionary).Errors have been categorized in numerous ways. Mackey et al. (2000) divided four types of errors that the teachers uses of corrective (feedback were phonology, morphosyntax,lexis and semantics. Furthermore, Park (2010) categorized five errors types. These are serious spoken error, less serious spoken error; frequent spoken error, infrequent spoken error, and individual spoken error. Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized six types of corrective feedback; namely, explicit corrective feedback, recast, metalinguistic feedback, clarification request, elicitation, and repetition. There has been an enormous interest in the area of teachers and learners perspectives and preferences on spoken error correction. Many researchers and educators viewed that a gap between the teachers and learners perspectives about the usefulness of practices can result in unsatisfactory learning outcomes.( eg, Green, 1993; Horwiz, 1988; Mc Cargar,1993; Nunan, 1987; Schulz, 2001). It is essential for the teachers to know their learners actual preferences. Nunan (1995) pointed out that teachers should find out what their students think and feel about what and how they want to learn (p.140) What is more, Katayama (2007, p.287) researched about the Japanese students attitudes error correction in the United States. The results showed that the learners preferred teachers error correction, and also preferred to get clues from their teachers because they had a chance to correct their own mistakes. Park (2010) investigated the teachers and learners preferences for error correction. All the students were adult learners studying at two large universities in California and 18 ESL teachers at these universities. All the teachers responded that serious errors should be addressed, and 71% of the learners answered that their serious errors should be treated. The question asked about their preferences for corrective feedback type, the teachers highly favored repetition whereas elicitation was the most favorite type of corrective feedback among the students. As the researchers observed, there are some certain effective types of corrective feedback are found. Elicitation and metalinguistic feedback were the most effective feedback types even though they were followed by the recast in the frequency of use. (Lyster and Ranta, 1997).MethodologyParticipantsThe participants in this study were eighty three students learning at two private languages schools in Yangon, Myanmar and 12 teachers from Dagon University and two private language schools (NELC and Nilar) in Yangon, Myanmar. The beginner level adult learners were chosen from two private language schools (NELC and Nilar) for the quantitative part of this research. Thirty three males and fifty female students completed the questionnaires. Among these learners, 45 students were undergraduates, 29 were graduated and 9 were post-graduated. The age of students were arranged in groups as follows: 16-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30 and above.InstrumentsThe instruments in this study used were questionnaires. The questions were adapted from Parks research (2010) which investigates teachers and learners preferences on spoken error correction. These questionnaires contained both questions with five point Likert scale and answers alternatives in English. Two types of questionnaires were applied in this study: one was for teachers and the other was for students. Each questionnaire had two sections. The questions in the first section asked about the teachers and the learners perspectives of the necessary of error correction and the frequency of spoken error correction, their preferences for timing of error correction, the types of error that need to be corrected, preferable corrective feedback type and delivering agents of oral error correction. The second part of the questionnaire was simply designed to collect participants demographic information. Questionnaires were administered to twelve teachers and eighty three students. Before completing the questionnaires, all the questions in these questionnaires were fully explained in Myanmar language in advance in order to avoid misunderstanding and confusion in answering questionnaires. It is no doubt that using mother tongue brings more beneficial and reliable information for this study.Data AnalysisThe data collection was carried out in December, 2015. Firstly, I contacted Myanmar teachers of English in Yangon, Myanmar to introduce myself and explained my research topic by phone, by email, and in person. They were informed that their responses to the survey documents would be anonymous. All twelve teachers completed all of the questionnaires. In order to administer the students questionnaires, I visited two schools and asked for permissions to collect the data from two private language schools (NELC and Nilar) in Yangon, Myanmar. I distributed the questionnaires to the beginning adult learners of English. I made a promise that their students responses would be kept anonymous. When I received permission, the questionnaires were distributed to the students by giving a clear explanation and instruction in Myanmar to be sure that they were able to comprehend each and every single detail regarding all questions. Questionnaire data was analyzed in percentages by using SPSS software and were tabulated. Result This chapter presents the results of the findings of the data collection from completed questionnaires from Myanmar teachers who are teaching English and Myanmar adult beginning level learners of English Language. Teachers and Learners Preferences on Necessary of Error Correction According to the question 1 of the questionnaire, the students were asked to give a response to the statement, I want to receive corrective feedback. Teachers were asked to give a response to the statement, Students spoken errors should be treated. Regarding the necessary of error correction, Table 1 presents the students and teachers responses. The results indicated that 95.5 % of the students and 74.9 % of the teachers participants gave responses of strongly agree or agree on question (1). Surprisingly, none of the teachers and learners disagrees with the statement. The findings show that both the students and teachers believed students spoken error should be corrected. Below is a table represents the percentage of the students and teachers responses on the necessary of spoken error correction.

Table 1: Students and teachers responses on the necessary of error correctionParticipants Students % Teachers % Strongly agree 28.9 33.3

Agree 66.6 41.6

Neutral 2.4 25

Disagree 0 0

Strongly Disagree 0 0

Teachers and students preferences on frequency of error correctionQuestions 2 asked the students, How often do you want your teacher to give corrective feedback on your spoken errors? and the teachers, How often do you give corrective feedback on students spoken errors? Table 2 indicates the teachers and students responses to the frequency of error correction. The results revealed that the majority of the students preferred to be corrected usually and most of the teachers preferred to correct errors always. The results indicated that 38.6 % of the students believed that their oral errors should be always corrected whereas 16.6% of the teachers always corrected their learners spoken errors. While 50.6 % of the learners agreed that their errors should be usually corrected, 58.3% of the teachers agreed that their learners errors should be usually treated. Some learners and teachers preferred to correct the errors sometimes. Table 2 indicates the results regarding the preferences on frequency of error correction. These findings are similar to the previous findings in that learners usually expect to receive error correction from the teachers. (Ancker, 2000).Table 2: Students and teachers responses on the frequency of error correction Frequency Students % Teachers %Always 38.6 16.6Usually 50.6 9.6Sometimes 9.6 25Occasionally 1.2 0Never 0 0Students (n=83) , Teachers (n=12)

Teachers and students preferences on timing of error correction Regarding the timing of error correction, questions (3, 4, 5, and 6) were asked to determine the appropriate time to correct learners spoken errors. In this category, there were four questions for students and teachers: (3) As soon as the errors are made even if it interrupts the conversation, (4) After I finish speaking, (5) After the activities, and (6) At the end of the class. Both the students and teachers were asked to rate each question. The survey results are mentioned in Table 3. For Question (3), a greater percentage of the teachers (91.7%) preferred to correct students errors after the activities, and majority of the learners preferred to get correction after they finish speaking. More than half of the students strongly disagreed to correct learners errors immediately after making mistakes. This findings show that interrupting the learners speaking to correct their errors was not the teachers choice and their preferences. For question (4), a large number of the learners (82.2%) considered after they finish speaking was the most appropriate time to correct their spoken errors. For question (5), almost all of the teachers (91.7%) strongly agreed or agreed that after the activities was the most appropriate time for students oral error correction. For question (6), almost the same percentage of the learners and teachers strongly agreed or agreed that the students spoken errors should be corrected at the end of the class (34.8% and 33.3% respectively). Table 3: Students and teachers responses on the timing of error correction %TimingS A/ AND /SD

As soon as errors are madeST63.8021.716.614.583.3

After I finish speakingST82.241.6128.3650

After activitiesST55.491.723.38.319.30

At the end of classST34.833.331.35033.916.6

SA= Strongly agree, A= Agree, N=Neutral, D=disagree, SD= Strongly DisagreeStudents and Teachers responses on the types of errors that need to be corrected The questions in the fourth category asked which types of errors: serious spoken errors, less serious spoken errors, frequent spoken errors, infrequent spoken errors and individual errors. The teachers and the learners were asked to rate each questions with A= Always, U=Usually, S=Sometimes,O=Occasionally,or N=Never. Always was worth five points and Never was worth one point. Table 4 describes the percentage of the learners and teachers responses. All of the teachers expressed that students serious spoken errors should be always or usually corrected (50%) each. However, 44.6% of the students responded that they always wanted their serious spoken error correction and 38.5 % of them usually wanted their spoken error correction. Both of the teachers and learners showed their strong preferences for correcting serious spoken errors. It is common for teachers to focus on learners serious spoken errors that cause misunderstanding and miscommunication between the listeners and the speakers. For frequent errors, the vast majority of the teachers (66.6%) responded students frequent oral errors should be treated. Table 4 Students and teachers responses on the types of errors that need to be treated (%)Error Types A U S O NSerious 44.6 38.5 16.9 0 0Less serious 1.2 22.7 38.9 28.9 2.4Frequent 12 42.2 34.9 10.8 0Infrequent 7.2 19.3 40.9 22.9 9.6Individual 25.3 30.1 26.5 14.5 3.6 Teachers responsesError types A U S O NSerious 50 50 50 0 0 Less serious 0 41.6 58.3 0 0Frequent 16.6 66.7 16.6 0 0Infrequent 0 41.6 25 33.3 0Individual 8.3 58.3 33 0 0Students and Teachers preferences on types of correction Table 5 shows the percentages of students and teachers preferences on types of corrective feedback. The findings indicate that explicit corrective feedback was the most favorable method of corrective feedback among the students and repetition was the most favorable method of corrective feedback among the teachers. These results were in accordance with the previous studies. For example, Park (2010) had the similar results. Amazingly, almost all of the teachers (91.6 %) preferred repetition as the most effective corrective feedback. The second most favorable corrective feedback type of the teachers was implicit feedback because 83.3% of them rated it as it is effective and very effective. The third choice was metalinguistic feedback as 66.6% rated it as being effective. According to the responses of students, the most preferable corrective feedback was explicit correction as the highest percentage (75.9 %) of the students showed their strong preferences on this type of feedback.Table 5 Students and Teachers preferences on types of corrective feedback %Feedback Participant VE/ E N In E/V InETypes Clarification S 54.5 37 10.6 Request T 58.3 33.3 8.3 Repetition S 68.6 19.3 12 T 91.6 0 8.3 Implicit S 42.7 30.1 19.2 T 83.3 16.6 0Explicit S 75.9 16.9 7.2 T 25 75 0Elicitation S 62.6 19.2 18.1 T 33.3 50 16.6No corrective S 26.5 19.3 54.2 Type T 0 58.3 41.6Metalinguistic S 63.8 19.3 16.9 T 66.6 33.3 0Recast S 50.6 13.3 36.1 T 33.3 8.3 25 VE= very effective, E= Effective, N=neutral, In E=Ineffective, V In E = Very IneffectiveDelivering Agents of Error Correction The last group of questions asked the learners who should correct their oral errors. The statement in the question was The following person should treat students error. For this statement, there are three choices: classmates, teachers, and students themselves. These three questions asked about the opinions concerning the preferences of peer-correction, teacher- correction and self-correction. As Table 6 indicates, both the teachers and the students considered that the teachers were the most appropriate persons to correct the students oral errors. The teachers strongly agreed and agreed (50% ) respectively. Moreover, 67.5 % of the students strongly agreed and 32.5 % of them agreed for teacher-correction. These findings clearly indicate that both of the participants extremely prefer teachers oral correction.Table 4.6 Students and teachers preferences on the Delivering Agents (%) Agents SA/A N DA/SDAClassmates S 77.1 18.1 4.8 T 58.3 2.4 24.9 Teachers S 100 0 0 T 100 0 0Students S 71.1 13.3 14.4Themselves T 75 25 0 SA= strongly agree, A= agree, N= neutral, DA= disagree, SDA= strongly disagreeDiscussion This current study reveals that most of the students and teachers showed a strong preference on oral error correction. They all believe error correction can help them improve their language learning. This finding is similar to that of Schultzs (1996) study, whether 90% of the students want to receive their oral error correction from their teachers. For the second question regarding the frequency of oral error correction, both of the participants preferred that their errors should be usually treated. Like numerous previous researchers believed that students oral error correction plays a significant role in second language learning. (eg. Doughty & Varcla, 1998, Lyster & Ranta, 1997). A large number of students (82.2%) considered after they finish speaking was the most preferable time to correct their errors while almost all of the teachers (91.6%) agreed or strongly agreed after the activities was the most appropriate time. Harmer (2001) also described the best time to correct students errors is as late as possible. Both of the participants in this study preferred delayed correction rather than immediate correction. It should be noted from this finding that students valued not only their language accuracy but also their fluency in their speaking. According to these, both of the participants strongly believed serious errors and frequent errors are highly important to be corrected to improve the learners language skill. Besides, explicit corrective feedback was the most favorable type of corrective feedback among the students and repetition was the teachers most favorable corrective feedback type. Furthermore, Swan (1993) mentioned explicit corrective feedback type as the major preference for participants due to its brevity. In regarding to the delivering agent, both of the participants completely agreed that teacher was the main resource of error correction.

Conclusion The finding indicates that both the teachers and students strongly agreed that students oral errors should be corrected. But in some cases, the preferences were different between the teachers and the students. Regarding the timing, the highest percentage of the teachers (91.6%) preferred after the activities and the majority of the students (82.2%) preferred after finish speaking. Both teachers and students preferred serious errors and frequent errors to be treated. Although repetition was the main preferable feedback type among the teachers, students preferred explicit corrective feedback type most. Both of the participants believed teacher was the most preferable person to correct students oral errors concerned with their preferences on the delivering agents. This study indicates that both the teachers and the students have a strong preference on oral error correction as it can facilitate language learning and students can improve their language skills. Moreover, teachers should not ignore students oral errors. References[1] Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991).Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: CUP.[2] Doff, A. (1993). Teach English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press[3] Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press[4] Error and Mistake.(n.d.).In Cambridge Online Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ [5] Error and Mistake.(n.d.).In Oxford Dictionary Online. http://oxforddictionaries.com/[6] Green, J. M. (1993). Student attitudes toward communicative and non-communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together? The Modern Language Journal 77(1), 1-10.[7] Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language student. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.[8] Katayama, A. (2007). Japanese EFL students preferences toward correction of classroom oral errors. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 289-305. [9] Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37- 66.[10] McCargar, D. F.(1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207.[11] Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: The learners view. In K. D. Bikram (Ed.), Communication and learning in the classroom community, (pp. 176-190). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.[12] Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158.[13] Park. H. S (2010) Teachers and Learners preferences for error correction