EF Trinity Diploma TESOLTeacher I is a non-native English speaker with five years’ post-certificate teaching experience and one year post-diploma teaching experience in China. He

EF Trinity Diploma TESOL Section 1: Classroom Observation Instrument

Error Correction

1

EF Trinity Diploma TESOL

Portfolio Section 1: Classroom Observation Instrument

Error Correction

Hugh Mortimer

May 2013

3256 words


Error Correction

2

Table of Contents

1. Rationale

Introduction 3

Reasons for choosing the instrument 3

The design of the instrument 4

How the instrument will be used for observations 4

2. Using the Instrument

A brief description of the lessons 5

Version 1 (Initial Instrument)

a) Observation Tool 6

b) Application 7

c) Modifications 7

Version 2


b) Application 9

c) Modifications 9

Version 3


b) Application 11

A description of data collected 12

3. Conclusions and Implications

Data Analysis and Improving the effectiveness of teaching in general 16

Effectiveness of the instrument for observation and evaluation 17

Implications for professional development at EF 17

Implications for my own teaching 18

Future development 18

4. Appendices

1. Summary of lessons observed 19

2. Raw observational data 20

3. Original observations 21

4. Bibliography 35


Error Correction

3

Classroom Observation Instrument

Error Correction

1. Rationale

“All students make mistakes at various stages of their language learning. It is part of the natural process they are

going through and occurs for a number of reasons … Correction helps students to clarify their understanding of the

meaning and construction of language.”

– Harmer, How to Teach English (2010).

Introduction

Attitudes towards learner error have taken many turns over the years, whereby recent thinking

sees errors as evidence of developmental processes rather than a result of bad habit

formation1.

Scrivener sees the aims of error correction2 as:

a) building confidence

b) raising awareness

c) acknowledging achievement and progress

d) helping students become more accurate in their use of language.

Meanwhile, Thornbury highlights the importance of accuracy1 in that:

e) attention to accuracy is claimed to be a necessary condition for interlanguage

development

f) lack of negative feedback may be a contributing factor to fossilization.

Reasons for choosing the instrument

In my role as Centre Education Manager, I regularly observe lessons and provide feedback to

teachers as part of their ongoing professional development. In doing so, I have noticed a trend

amongst our teachers to under-utilise error correction technique commonly included in pre-

service courses. Feedback collected at our centre on the student lesson experience, likewise,

reflects a desire amongst our students for correction, with ‘I would like to receive more

opportunities for correction’ scoring consistently highly amongst responses. Furthermore, it is

clear that many of our students’ actual abilities fall some way short of their course level and I

suspect that an overall lack of correction may be a contributing factor.

In focussing on this area, I hope to raise the profile of error correction amongst our teachers in

order to more effectively achieve the above aims while meeting our students’ expectations, and

in the long-term minimise the gap between actual and course levels.

I aim to develop an instrument that can help gain visibility of the quality and quantity of error

correction, while hopefully answering the following questions:

1. Does correction shift from instant to delayed as lessons move from accuracy to fluency?

2. Do teachers correct a range of types of error or do they show bias towards some types?

3. Do teachers demonstrate a range of techniques for correction and are they effective?

4. How much error correction is related to the target language?

1 Thornbury, 2006 2 Scrivener, 2005


Error Correction

4

The design of the instrument

I have based the initial observation instrument on Scrivener’s observation task for errors and

correction3, whereby the following information is observed:

1. A transcription of the error.

2. The type of error.

3. How the error is indicated and corrected.

I anticipate it requiring a number of adaptations if it is to attempt to answer the questions

posed above, but feel that it should represent a useful starting point for the assignment in that

it will allow an opportunity for me to get used to categorising errors quickly and becoming

familiar with the range of error techniques currently in use by these teachers. It will also allow

time to assess any unforeseen practical difficulties that might arise during the observations.

How the instrument will be used for observations

I will observe a total of 12 lessons, with 4 lessons per version of the instrument.

As one of my aims looks to identify any personal bias over types of error corrected, I will look to

observe 4 different teachers:

Teacher A is a native English speaker with four years’ post-certificate teaching

experience and two further years’ pre-certificate teaching experience across China and

the Middle East. She is currently a senior teacher.

Teacher B is a native English speaker with eight years’ post-certificate teaching

experience across China and the US.

Teacher I is a non-native English speaker with five years’ post-certificate teaching

experience and one year post-diploma teaching experience in China. He is currently a

Centre Education Manager.

Teacher T is a native English speaker with four years’ post-certificate teaching

experience in China.

3 Scrivener, 2005


Error Correction

5

2. Using the Instrument

A Brief Description of the Lessons

I will focus on observing Face to Face (F2F) lessons at EF, as their limited class sizes are likely

to include the most examples of error correction amongst the three types of class offered.

F2F lessons are General English lessons that can be booked by a maximum of four students. The

students are all Chinese adults, aged typically between 20 and 40, with Mandarin Chinese or

another Chinese dialect as their L1. I will observe a range of classes from between A1 and C1

(Beginner to Advanced) on the Common European Framework of Reference. To ensure a

consistent range of interactions are available for correction (ie. T-S, S-S, Ss-S), I will only

observe lessons booked by 3 or 4 students.

Version 1

6


Error Correction during Controlled and Freer Practice

7

Version 1

Application

I used the initial observation instrument to observe four different teachers for one lesson each.

In doing so, differences in error correction technique came to light:

Quantity – The lesson with most correction had almost double that of the one with the least.

Types of error - There were considerable differences in the proportions of grammar, lexis and

pronunciation-based errors corrected.

There are some downsides to the initial instrument in that:

1. It is not easy to scan for trends with types of error.

2. It is limited to 10 errors per sheet and most observations equalled or exceeded this.

Modifications

I looked to address the disadvantages above by making the following modifications:

1. The layout was altered to enable easy vertical scanning to identify trends in all fields.

2. The new layout allowed space for 20 errors per sheet to be recorded.

In addition, I looked to widen the scope of the existing instrument by considering all five

decisions Scrivener recommends making for dealing with oral errors4:

a) what kind of error – retained from the initial instrument.

b) whether to deal with it – this implies observing all uncorrected errors in a lesson and is

deemed impractical for this assignment.

c) when to deal with it

d) who will correct

e) appropriate technique – retained from the initial instrument.

This led to the following additional modifications:

3. The ‘Indication/Correction’ field was absorbed into an ‘Error Correction’ column and

the scope extended to capture both the corrector/s and timing of correction.

Scrivener also indicates that the timing of correction is best based on what type of activity they

occur in4, which led to the final modification:

4. A column was added to record the minute an error takes place, while a separate area

created to identify diagrammatically when the controlled, guided and freer practice

activities took place. This should allow clear trends to be drawn across the spectrum of

accuracy to fluency throughout a lesson.

4 Scrivener, 2005

Version 2

8


Error Correction

9

Version 2

Application

The instrument was again used to observe the same four teachers for one lesson each.

The new design had some benefits in that:

a) it collected more information for analysis (error minute, corrector, correction timing).

b) trends were easier to identify through vertical scanning.

c) the key enabled faster note-taking.

However, there were some difficulties in using the tool:

1. Identifying ‘controlled’, ‘guided’ and ‘freer’ practices during lessons was difficult, as

often the distinctions were not obvious.

2. The volume of information to record for each error was difficult to manage.

Modifications

The following modifications were made to address the difficulties identified above:

1. The ‘Staging’ component was simplified to record only the focus of the activity or

phase (accuracy or fluency). This adheres to Scrivener’s commentary that on-the-spot

or delayed correction be based on the aim of the activity5.

2. Multiple-choice selections were added in places to speed up the note-taking process.

A renewed attempt to investigate the decision over whether to correct5 was incorporated based

on my own thoughts that, amongst others, this would involve:

a) whether or not the error is based on target language (TL).

b) as above, whether errors occur within fluency-based or accuracy-based activities.

c) whether errors themselves are high-frequency.

d) whether or not errors are likely to impede real-world communication.

Given the practicalities of observations, additional modifications were limited to the following:

3. A column was introduced to record whether an error is based on TL.

4. A space for lesson aims was added to help in deciding whether errors were TL-based.

Finally, I felt the instrument required a record of student reactions to error correction. Gower,

Phillips and Walters’ suggestion that teachers “get the student who made the error to say the

correct version”6 might be one way to gauge uptake, with other potential responses being:

a) the student nods, says ‘yes’, etc.

b) the student says the correct form later in the lesson.

As such, the following modification was also made:

5. A column was introduced to record ‘evidence of uptake’, which allows for free writing

to reflect the multiple possible reactions of students.

5 Scrivener, 2005 6 Gower, Phillips & Walters, 2005

Version 3

10

11

Version 3

Application

The final instrument was used to observe the same four teachers over one lesson each.

The final design had the following advantages:

a) Identification of the error occurrence being simplified to ‘accuracy’ and ‘fluency’ of the

activity focus made it much easier to classify.

b) The availability of multiple-choice options to circle also saved time when note-taking.

c) Collation of target language and evidence of uptake made for a more rounded

instrument.

There were still a few difficulties in that:

1. It was difficult to note complete descriptions of how errors were corrected in the space.

2. Deciding if errors were rooted in target language was somewhat subjective.


Error Correction

12

Description of data collected

Types of Error

Data was collected across all three versions of the instrument, enabling representation of the

total number of errors corrected by each teacher broken down by type of error (figure 1).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No

. Err

ors

Co

rrec

ted

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher I Teacher T

Types of Errors Corrected Across All Lessons

Grammar Lexis Pronunciation

Figure 1 – Types of errors corrected across all lessons

A second representation enables an analysis of how much variation each teacher exhibited

across the three lessons (figures 2-5).

Teacher A - Types of Errors Corrected by Lesson

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3

No

. Err

ors

Co

rrecte

d


Figure 2 – Teacher A – Types of errors corrected


Error Correction

13

Teacher B - Types of Errors Corrected by Lesson

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


No

. Err

ors

Co

rrec

ted


Figure 3 – Teacher B – Types of errors corrected

Teacher I - Types of Errors Corrected by Lesson

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


No

. Err

ors

Co

rrec

ted


Figure 4 – Teacher I – Types of errors corrected

Teacher T - Types of Errors Corrected by Lesson

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


No

. Err

ors

C

o

r

r

e

c

t

e

d


Figure 5 – Teacher T – Types of errors corrected


Error Correction

14

Accuracy versus Fluency

The third version of the instrument captured data related to whether or not errors were based

on target language. This can be used as a means of comparison with other factors (figures 6-9).

Figure 6 – Errors based on target language corrected

Figure 7 – Corrector/s of errors

Figure 8 – Timing of corrections

Errors Based on Target Language (TL) corrected

during Accuracy-Focussed Activities

96%

4%

Error with TL Error outside TL

Errors Based on Target Language (TL) corrected

during Fluency-Focussed Activities

73%

27%

Error with TL Error outside TL

Corrector/s of Errors during

Accuracy-Focussed Activities

44%

17%

17%

22%

Self Peer Teacher Class

Corrector/s of Errors during

Fluency-Focussed Activities

5%

9%

41%

45%

Self Peer Teacher Class

Timing of Corrections during


79%

4%

17%

Instant - focussed Instant - brief Delayed

Timing of Corrections during


18%

23%

59%

Instant - focussed Instant - brief Delayed


Error Correction

15

Figure 9 – Evidence of uptake

Evidence of Uptake during


96%

4%

Evidence observed Evidence not observed

Evidence of Uptake during


73%

27%

Evidence observed Evidence not observed


Error Correction

16

3. Conclusions and Implications

Data analysis and improving the effectiveness of teaching in general

Types of errors corrected

Error corrections were distributed unevenly across the three categories of error recorded,

while teachers’ attention to correction differed considerably in volume (figure 1).

Teacher A corrected twice as many grammatical errors than pronunciation errors,

followed by a lesser focus on lexical error.

Teacher B corrected the least errors overall. There was a strong focus on lexical errors,

which were corrected more than three times more frequently than grammar, while

there was almost no focus on errors related to pronunciation.

Teacher I corrected the most errors overall, with grammatical error receiving the most

attention followed by pronunciation and lexical errors respectively.

Teacher T focussed mainly on lexical error, followed by pronunciation error and a

relatively low proportion of grammatical error.

The data goes on to indicate that the attention given by teachers to different types of error was

largely similar across each of the three lessons, suggesting all four teachers hold some element

of bias towards particular types of correction (figures 2-5).

Given the advice from Teaching Practice that encourages errors regarding meaning as more

serious than form7, it could be suggested that if indeed teachers hold individual bias towards

particular types of error (regardless of what error actually occurs in lessons) then teachers are

doing students a disservice by holding on to their individual preferences.

Accuracy versus Fluency

Target Language - Looking at the third lesson in isolation, figure 6 indicates that the broad

majority (96%) of corrections during accuracy-focussed activities were based on the target

language of the specific lesson. Meanwhile, only 73% of errors corrected during fluency-based

phases were based on the target language, which might be explained through the greater

presence of non-TL in freer tasks. We might infer that too great a focus on target language alone

could lead to fossilization of common errors outside the scope of the lesson.

Corrector/s – The highest proportion of errors corrected during accuracy-based

activities(44%) were corrected by the student, while the remainder were corrected fairly

evenly between peers, the teacher or the class (figure 7). The relatively low proportion of

teacher correction during accuracy-based phases (17%) seems to be roughly in line with

Teaching Practice’s preference for giving opportunities for self-correction8, though the 41% of

teacher corrections of errors made during fluency-based phases runs counter to this. This

might be explained by the presence of teacher correction aimed at recasting specific errors

without disrupting an activity (see timing of corrections). Fluency-focussed activities received

7 Gower, Phillips & Walters, 2005 – “Generally, you should consider an error that shows the student doesn’t understand the

meaning of the language as more serious than one where the student is not able to produce the correct form”.


Error Correction

17

mainly class and teacher correction, with minimal self or peer correction. I believe this

highlights a trend of many teachers to default to a set behaviour for delayed feedback, often

boarding three errors before eliciting or giving corrections whole class. Teachers here could be

encouraged to use errors as an activity in itself, having students correct on their own or in pairs

before class feedback.

Timing of corrections – The majority (80%) of errors corrected during accuracy-based

activities were corrected immediately and in a focussed (not brief) manner. There was some

(17%) delayed correction in these phases and minimal instant but brief correction. This

contrasts with that of fluency-based activities, which received mostly delayed correction (59%)

and roughly 20% of both focussed and brief instant correction (figure 8). These findings seem

to run parallel to Scrivener’s general preference for accuracy-based instant correction and

fluency-based delayed correction8.

Evidence of uptake – Evidence was observed in 96% of corrections during accuracy-focussed

activities, with 73% of those in fluency-based activities showing signs of uptake (figure 9). The

lower percentage during fluency-based activities might again be explained by the proportion of

brief corrections made by the teacher when trying not to focus overly on an error. However,

there was no attempt to monitor the reliability of evidence observed, with a head nod and a self

correction being treated equally as ‘evidence’, which may render the results artificially high.

Effectiveness of the instrument for observation and evaluation

In terms of evaluation, it is effective as a basis for collecting a broad range of data regarding

learner error, teacher correction and learner response. As such, it is suited to being used to

observe both newer and more experienced teachers and with further adaptation could be

useful as a tool for peer-evaluation.

Despite simplification between versions 2 and 3, the final instrument remains a rather dense

tool that requires a certain amount of concentration to use effectively. Having observed using

the preceding versions and gained familiarity with the tools, I found it fairly comfortable to use.

However, it would probably require further modification and simplification in order to be used

by other teachers.

Of the four questions that sought answers in the rationale, three questions were answered

fairly thoroughly, with more depth of observation required to explore the range of techniques

used by teachers to correct more fully.

Implications for professional development at EF

Using the instrument for evaluative purposes, I am quite satisfied with the degree of target

language-based and immediate correction, along with the amount of self/peer correction

employed during accuracy phases. I would like to encourage greater use of self and peer

correction over teacher correction after fluency-based activities, and will incorporate a

discussion on this in an upcoming team meeting.

The most significant findings of this assignment are in relation to the identification of

perceived teacher bias in the types of errors they correct regularly. In some cases, this was

8 Scrivener, 2005 – “If the objective is accuracy, then immediate correction is more likely to be useful; if the aim is fluency, then

immediate correction is less appropriate and any correction will probably come after the activity has finished or later.”


Error Correction

18

quite severe: Teacher B corrected only 2 pronunciation errors in 150 minutes of lessons. These

trends are important to address as they imply that errors are going uncorrected in many

lessons when taught by a teacher without a ‘preference’ for correcting those types. This could

be done as part of a training session that raises awareness of the types of errors students can

make and highlights methods of correction for each. As a follow-up, after further simplification

of the instrument, teachers could be encouraged to peer observe with this in mind.

Implications for my own teaching

The assignment has made me aware of the potential for natural teacher bias towards particular

types of error. As such, I would like to explore if my own teaching indicates such bias and if so

towards which types. Of course, teacher corrections will always be limited by what is actually

said by students in any one lesson, therefore exploration here must take place over a series of

lessons. This could be done most simply by having teachers observe me with the instrument

itself, perhaps as a follow-up to the training mentioned above.

Having observed heavily for error correction in this assignment, I am finding that I ask the

same questions of myself as I teach nowadays; who is correcting, when is the correction taking

place, what technique am I using to correct the error, does the student show signs of uptake?

Future Development

The instrument could be taken further by exploring some of the following areas in more detail:

Method of correction – Tick-box options could be provided for commonly used methods (e.g.

repeat with intonation, board error, etc.). Alternatively, it could be set up to record the main

stages in the process of error correction highlighted in Teaching Practice9:

i. The student knows something is not accurate.

ii. The student knows where the error is.

iii. The student know what kind of error it is

Evidence of uptake – An effort could be made to grade evidence by its ‘strength’, perhaps by

ordering commonly observed signs of uptake by their strength and creating tick boxes.

Slips versus errors – An attempt to distinguish between slips and errors could be made,

whereby results are compared with who makes the corrections. This might help shed light on the appropriacy of the corrector, as after all “mistakes can be self-corrected with or without being

pointed out to the speaker but errors cannot be self-corrected”10.

Anticipation of errors – On the assumption that predicting what errors might come up before

the lesson will better equip teachers to tackle errors in the lesson11, it would be possible to chat

with teachers before observations to identify what thoughts have gone into anticipating errors.

Decisions must be made over how much information is practical to observe for in one lesson,

and any exploration into these areas is likely to require reductions or modifications elsewhere.

9 Gower, Phillips & Walters, 2005 10 Purwati et al, 2011 11 Gower, Phillips & Walters, 2005 “If you know what might come up you are likely to be more alert to the errors that do come up.”


Error Correction

19

4. Appendices

Appendix 1: Summary of lessons observed


Error Correction

20

Appendix 3: Raw observational data


Error Correction

21

Appendix 2: Original observations (Lesson 1)


Error Correction

22

Appendix 2: Original observations (Lesson 2 – Page 1)


Error Correction

23



Error Correction

24



Error Correction

25



Error Correction

26



Error Correction

27



Error Correction

28



Error Correction

29



Error Correction

30



Error Correction

31



Error Correction

32



Error Correction

33



Error Correction

34



Error Correction

35

Appendix 4: Bibliography

Gower, Phillips & Walters (2005) – Teaching Practice (Heinemann)

Harmer, Jeremy (2010) – How to Teach English (Longman)

Scrivener, Jim (2005) – Learning Teaching (Macmillan)

Thornbury, Scott (2006) – An A-Z of ELT (Macmillan)

Purwati, Nika (2011) – Research in English and Applied Linguistics Vol 2 (Routledge)

Documents

EF Trinity Diploma TESOLTeacher I is a non-native English speaker with five years’ post-certificate teaching experience and one year post-diploma teaching experience in China. He