Myanmar EFL Teachers and Adult Learners Preferences on Oral Error

Correction
Khaing Mu Mu Zin, Steve McKee, Ph D
Shinawatra University, Thailand
Khinezin99@gmail.com, mckeesteve@hotmail.com
Abstract
Error 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
Introduction

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.

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 Study

The purpose of the study was

1) 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 Questions
This 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).
Methodology

Participants
The 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.
Instruments
The 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 Analysis
The 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 correction
Participants
Students %
Teachers %
Strongly agree 28.9
33.3
Agree

66.6

41.6

Neutral

2.4

25

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Teachers and students preferences on

frequency of error correction
Questions 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
16.6
Usually
50.6
9.6
Sometimes
9.6
25
Occasionally 1.2
0
Never
0
0
Students (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 %
Timing

S A/
A

D
/SD

As soon as
errors are
made

63.8

21.7

14.5

16.6

83.3

After I
finish
speaking

82.2

12

41.6

8.3

50

After
activities

55.4

23.3

19.3

91.7

8.3

At the end
of class

34.8

31.3

33.9

33.3

50

16.6

SA= Strongly agree, A= Agree, N=Neutral,

D=disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree
Students 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
Serious

44.6 38.5 16.9 0

Less serious 1.2

22.7 38.9 28.9 2.4

Frequent

12

42.2 34.9 10.8 0

Infrequent

7.2

19.3 40.9 22.9 9.6

Individual

25.3 30.1 26.5 14.5 3.6

Serious
Less serious
Frequent

Feedback Participant VE/ E N In E/V InE

Types

50

50

50

41.6 58.3

16.6

66.7 16.6

Infrequent
33.3
0
Individual

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 %

Teachers responses
Error types
N

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,

8.3

41.6

58.3 33

Clarification

54.5

37

Request

58.3

33.3

Repetition

68.6

19.3

12

91.6

8.3

42.7

30.1

19.2

25

Students 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

Implicit

10.6
8.3

83.3

16.6

0
Explicit

Elicitation

75.9

25

62.6

16.9
75
19.2

7.2
0
18.1

33.3

50

No corrective S

26.5

Type

Metalinguistic S
T
Recast

19.3

54.2

58.3

41.6

63.8

19.3

16.9

66.6

33.3

50.6

16.6

33.3

13.3
8.3

36.1
25

VE= very effective, E= Effective, N=neutral, In

E=Ineffective, V In E = Very Ineffective
Delivering 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

DA/SDA

Classmates S

77.1

18.1

4.8

58.3

2.4

24.9

Teachers

S 100

T 100
Students

Themselves T

71.1

13.3

14.4

75

25

SA= strongly agree, A= agree, N= neutral,

DA= disagree, SDA= strongly disagree
Discussion
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