Error correction and feedback

As demonstrated in the description of the empirical background of the study, error correction and the recognition of different types of mistakes² have long been a topic of interest among researchers in the field of foreign language teaching (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998; Bardovi-(Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan &

Reynolds, 1996; Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Faerch & Kasper, 1989; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985). Waugh (2013) noted that it was essential to develop learners’

sociocultural competence, since being inappropriate could result in coming across as rude or insulting. Therefore, raising student awareness to different types of mistakes and their consequences is of utmost importance (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998;

Waugh, 2013).

6.3.5.1 Error correction in speaking

In general, it can be concluded that there was agreement among the respondents about the importance of delayed error correction, especially in communicative activities where students had the opportunity to produce longer utterances and use the language spontaneously. In more controlled speaking activities, however, both Eszter and Márk admitted to doing instant correction, especially when a particular grammatical structure was to be practised and students made mistakes in its use.

Emma called attention to the importance of selectivity in error correction, claiming that overdoing correction could definitely be a highly demotivating factor for students:

I leave a lot more mistakes uncorrected at first. I let them speak and don’t correct too much so that I wouldn’t discourage them. To build their self-confidence, to

2 The words error and mistake are used as synonyms in the dissertation.

make them more fluent. In my experience, if I correct every single mistake, it will eventually put them off talking. (Emma)

Her attitude was in line with Allwright and Bailey’s (1991) and Brown’s (1991) opinion, who agreed on the fact that a teacher had to pay attention to giving cognitive feedback on student performance and to carefully selecting the errors to be corrected, in order not to discourage students from continuing communication.

Anna and Emma highlighted the importance of peer-correction and claimed that they always encouraged students to attempt to identify different types of mistakes in the speech of their peers. Anna employed this correction technique both in more complex communicative activities and in controlled practices, too, where shorter utterances were produced. When preparing for an oral exam, she also made her students give scores to each other, thus making them familiar with and more aware of the assessment criteria of the particular exam. Emma, on the other hand, preferred to use peer-correction in longer interactions, such as debates or presentations, where she invited students to pinpoint not only linguistic, but structural and logical problems as well. She admitted, though, that students normally identified linguistic mistakes more easily, probably because those mistakes were more tangible for them.

Emma also highlighted the importance of raising students’ awareness to sociocultural mistakes, which are often considered to be more serious than linguistic mistakes by native speakers of English (Waugh, 2013), especially in EFL settings (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998). As an example, she listed the importance of short answers like ‘yes, I did’, instead of saying simply ‘yes’, or the appropriate use of indirect questions and question tags instead of direct questions. Anna also aimed to correct her students’ pragmatic or sociocultural failures, though she admitted that as a

Since I am not a native speaker, I might not even notice every cultural or pragmatic mistake, but I attempt to correct those types. (Anna)

Anna acknowledged the significance of raising students’ awareness to different types of mistakes. She concluded that a high level of pragmatic or sociocultural competence was not only essential in communication with members of the target language community, but was also incorporated into the assessment criteria of the oral part of various language exams.

6.3.5.2 Correction of written assignments

Considering the whats and hows of correcting written pieces of writing, the participants were all aware of the fact that the most constructive way of error correction was indicating the types of mistakes and inviting students to do the correcting themselves. However, considering the heavy workload of EFL teachers in Hungary, Anna, for instance, felt that this technique was idealistic and unattainable:

I know that that’s how it should be done, that I should underline and indicate the nature of the mistake, etc. And then the student corrects it and turns it back in.

This is all very well in theory, but I think that it simply cannot be done as part of an everyday routine. (Anna)

Eszter and Nóra also shared Anna’s opinion in claiming that to do such meticulous error correction on a regular basis with various learning groups was impossible.

However, at times they dedicated separate lessons to practice self-correction. On these occasions they employed the standardized correction symbol system used, for instance, in the written part of the school leaving examination, which students were familiar with. In such lessons Eszter monitored the correction process, discussing the mistakes with the students individually. At the same time, students were assigned additional

activities, usually sample language exam tasks, which they could do while others were still correcting their mistakes.

Hanna used a mixture of peer and self-correction techniques during the lessons with shorter pieces of writing. On completion of a writing task, students exchanged

‘products’ and first corrected each other’s mistakes. Then, Hanna collected the writings and corrected them herself, using a different colour. When handing out the assignments in the next lesson, both students were invited to check the mistakes Hanna had indicated. Hanna asserted that with the use of this correction technique, students’

awareness towards different types of mistakes could efficiently be raised. However, she acknowledged that this technique was quite time-consuming, and could not be used on a daily basis.

Selectivity was also regarded as important in terms of written error correction, too. Emma admitted to not correcting each and every mistake, in order not to discourage students from writing:

I always correct what we have already learned as I go and write some feedback for them at the end. So I don’t only make the corrections but also add some comments. I call their attention to what they need to watch out for, if they made the same mistake several times, I spell out the rule to them again. Or if there are structural or logical mistakes, I deal with those separately. I point out the linguistic mistakes as well as cohesive and pragmatic issues. (Emma)

She was the only participant who called attention to the importance of correcting or indicating pragmatic and textual mistakes. Emma maintained that for real development to take place, it was of vital importance to make students aware that ‘there are more serious mistakes than getting the past tense wrong’.

Márk, on the other hand, claimed that even though he corrected every single

on language exam scoring categories, such as task achievement (or content), accuracy and cohesion. Thus students became aware of the fact that in spite of the high number of mistakes, the assignment could still be a fine piece of writing, which achieved its communicative intent.

It helps a lot that task achievement is a relatively high number of points in every task. So it’s good that they don’t only see the corrections marked in red, but that despite all the red markings, it can still be a good composition. (Márk)