Apr. 2010, Volume 8, No.4 (Serial No.

79) US-China Foreign Language, ISSN 1539-8080, USA

Error correction strategies in students written work

HUANG Jing-biao
(School of Foreign Languages, Huaibei Coal Industry Teachers College, Anhui 235000, China)

Abstract: This paper mainly discusses error correction strategies in students written work by means of
comprehensive analysis of the causes of second language errors, and of what errors to correct and how to correct
them. It is merely an attempt to work out some guidelines for error correction that will help to eliminate errors and
facilitate learning and teaching in writing.
Key words: error correction strategies; written work; direct method; indirect method

1. Introduction

It is an exhausting, time-consuming, and most of all, unrewarding task for teachers to correct students
compositions. It is unrewarding that the result does not quite justify the patient effort and the immense amount of
time spent on marking and correcting the errors made by students. There are very few students who pay real
attention to the corrected errors as evidenced by the similar errors that recur in their subsequent compositions.
When audio-lingualism dominated foreign language methodologies throughout the 1950s and well into the
1960s, error was regarded as sin to be avoided and teachers should correct all errors immediately. Since the late
1960s, however, the trend has been changed from audio-lingualism to cognitive learning as a result of the
development of transformational-generative grammar and cognitive psychology. The use of language for
communication is marked as one of the most important foreign language learning objectives. Thus, the
pedagogical focus has been shifted from preventing errors to learning from errors. Since all language learners
inevitably produce errors when they communicate, the making of errors is regarded as a natural phenomenon
integral to the process of learning a foreign language. Errors are in this sense visible proof that learning is actually
taking place.
The teacher should, of course, not be a mere proofreader of his students writing, yet the students errors
should not be perfunctorily treated, either. Instead, the teacher should treat those errors carefully, for an improper
treatment of the errors may result in further or worse confusion in the minds of students.
Unfortunately, research in error correction and error eradication is very contradictory and speculative. No
current standards have been set up on whether, which or how learners errors should be corrected. Studies on error
correction are very diverse, if not contradictory. Diverse as the research is, some important ideas can still be drawn
from it.

2. Causes of learners errors

Generally speaking, the causes of second language errors can be classified as: (1) interlingual transfer
(interference); (2) intralingual transfer (i.e., overgeneralization); (3) induced errors; and (4) performance errors,

HUANG Jing-biao, male, associate professor of School of Foreign Languages, Huaibei Coal Industry Teachers College; research
fields: applied linguistics, ELT.

24
 Error correction strategies in students written work

with the first two causes predominating.

From the late 1950s to the 1960s, learners errors were almost always attributed to mother tongue
interference. Duskova (1969) found many errors from interference of the mother tongue, especially on the
syntactic level, but he affirmed that interference from the mother tongue was not the only interfering factor.
Generally speaking, the difference or partial difference between the target language and the source language in
linguistic properties will affect the extent of interference and the lower the language level, the higher the
interference percentage.
Besides mother tongue interference (interlingual transfer), the other major cause is recognized as
intralingual transfer. Owing to the complexity of the structure of English, learners tend to make similar errors
regardless of their background language. These errors usually result from complex rule-learning behavior,
characterized by: (1) overgeneralization; (2) incomplete application of rules; and (3) ignorance of rule restriction.
Overgeneralization is a general term that can cover: (1) analogy; (2) faulty rule-learning (i.e., ignorance of
rule restriction and incomplete application of rules); and (3) failure to observe distinction in the target language.
Actually, those terms are not mutually exclusive.

3. What errors to correct?

Teaching an English writing course in China, the author has found that teachers are not so much concerned
about causes of errors as about what errors should be corrected and how to correct them. Although some
researchers affirm that error correction does not improve students writing proficiency, teachers should not
abandon the accepted practice of correcting errors (Hendrickson, 1978). Errors will remain, if not corrected.
An increasing number of foreign language educators suggest that errors which impede the comprehensibility
of a message should receive top priority for correction. Besides comprehensibility, the criteria of error correction
that are suggested by language educators and researchers are high frequency (Holley & King, 1971; Dresdner,
1973; Allwright, 1975), high generality of grammatical rules (Cohen, 1975), stigmatizing or irritating effect
(Corder, 1973; Cohen, 1975), and pedagogical focus (Cohen, 1975).
Comprehensibility is the criterion which is most pervasively applied among those criteria. The errors that
cause a misunderstanding or lack of comprehension should receive first priority of correction. Since the main
purpose of using a language is to communicate ideas, correcting errors for comprehensibility should be a
reasonable goal. Chinese teachers, who share the learners first language, are more capable of comprehending
their students errors, because those errors mostly can be literally translated into Chinese. Therefore, those
sentences that are unintelligible from the perspective of Chinese teachers should, no doubt, rank first in error
correction.
Another important criterion for error correction is suggested to be frequency. If an error occurs frequently, it
must be a common error. So if teachers succeed in eliminating a frequent error, a greater percentage of accurate
language use will result (Walz, 1982). Beginning teachers usually have great difficulty in knowing which errors
are the most frequent, yet if they keep a record of their students errors and classify them into different categories.
It should not be difficult for them to find out those frequent ones.
As to high generality of rules, the grammar rules that are general or basic should be more worthy of attention
than errors that involve an isolated item or exception, because the basic grammar rules are frequently applied in
the majority of sentences and because those basic grammar rules should have been mastered in the early learning

25
 Error correction strategies in students written work

stage.
Many language educators believe that those errors that have stigmatizing or irritating effect on the reader
should be among the first to be corrected. It is, sometimes, difficult for native speakers to judge errors of this type,
and it is even more difficult for a non-native teacher to judge, from his own perspective, whether an error carries
social stigma, for he does not know if the error would evoke negative reaction. Since most language teaching, the
world over is probably in the hands of non-native teachers of the target language, this criterion should not be an
important one for error correction in EFL situation. Probably, the teacher may have to correct any error that he
personally considers stigmatizing or irritating. More important and feasible is the decision upon diction and
appropriateness of expression.
The other criterion that is adopted is a pedagogical focus. Errors in the grammar rules, for example, that have
recently been taught in class deserve to be corrected to enhance learning. Besides, since we cannot reasonably
expect students to learn all there is about writing at once, we have to ignore, for the time being, any grammar rules
or rhetorical devices that have not been taught so far. Correcting an error involving some grammar rule that is not
taught, after all, will only prove to be useless to the student, because the correction will soon be forgotten.
Besides the above-mentioned criteria, the basic word order of the target language should be an important
criterion for error correction. Not well aware of the syntactic and semantic difference between English and
Chinese, most Chinese students, who tend to think of their ideas first in Chinese and then translate them into
English, very often come up with English sentences in Chinese collocation, which mostly are unacceptable.
Therefore, the need to emphasize the basic word order in the target language is great. There are various types of
errors under this category, yet not all members in the same category are equally grave. For example, malformed
subjectless and verbless English sentences should be more urgently pointed out and corrected than other errors
under this category.

4. How to correct errors?

Since errors are inevitable in a language learning process, an English composition teacher has to confront
numerous errors in his students writings, and therefore, the teacher must have on hand a way to deal with errors.
4.1 Indirect methods
Language teachers usually assume the responsibility of correcting students errors. It is by no means
necessary or advisable that all the correction should come from the teacher. Language teachers should not
dominate the entire correction. If the teacher has students discover the error on their own, a lot of red ink will be
avoided. Correction should also come from other sources than the student himself and the teacher; the other
members of the group can help to correct errors. Such an approach might also improve students ability to
recognize errors, and then help them to prevent errors in some way. But, using other members of the group to
correct errors has to be carefully handled by the teacher so that no member in the group would take an aggressive
or critical attitude toward the student writer. Otherwise, this approach can be very harmful to the student whose
composition is being discussed.
4.1.1 Self-correction
For students, in order to be able to correct errors on their own, the teacher should explain their individual
errors to them, whenever possible, or he should mark the errors indicating the page in the grammar book or the
writing text or the correction checklist so that students can make reference to the part where the rule is explained.

26
 Error correction strategies in students written work

But, under no circumstances should the teacher attempt to send a student ahead to check a grammar rule or a
rhetorical device that has not been taught in class.
Self-correction, so far, is believed to be the most effective way of eradicating the error, yet self-correction, if
it is to be effective, must be approached under certain conditions. Firstly, the teacher should give sufficient clues
to avoid further or worse confusion that, otherwise, is likely to result. Then, those errors must be capable of being
clearly defined. Finally and most importantly, students have to have reached a high enough level of English to be
able to correct the error on their own. Besides, to ensure the effectiveness of self-correction, students should
correct and rewrite their compositions in class under the guidance of their teachers.
4.1.2 Group correction
Group correction is another indirect correction. Before starting the group correction, the teacher needs to
divide the students into groups. To guarantee various feedbacks, the peer groups are not fixed and there are
usually 3 to 6 members in each group to ensure full participation of the students. The teacher should guide the
students to realize the necessity and importance of peer feedback to improve their writing. Peer feedback helps the
writer to know what others think of the writing. It will enable each student to become an independent writer and to
cultivate an objective approach to his own writing.
To get most out of this correction strategy, the teacher needs to select those essays that contain typical or
common errors among students. Besides, each selected composition had better represent different types of writing
problems, preferably characteristic of that particular group, so as to give students a good opportunity to reinforce
their learning in some grammar rules or rhetorical devices taught previously.
In class, firstly, the student writer reads aloud his essay while the others listen; and then, read it together after
the writer finishes reading. While reading, the writer may do some self-response revision. After reading, the group
begins to discuss the essay, mainly the content and organization of the essay, such as the following aspects:
(1) Check the topicis it clear enough for you to understand?
(2) Check the structureis the organizational structure clear enough for you to follow?
(3) Check the developmentare there adequate supporting ideas? Does it have enough introductions, enough
body and enough conclusions?
(4) Check the writing purposeis what the reader perceives exactly what the writer means to express?
After the group discussion, the writer is given time to revise according to the peer feedback. Then the revised
essay is brought to the group and the second group correction begins.
The students attention is guided to more detailed aspects of the essay in the second group revision. Students
are reminded to focus their attention on aspects, such as the following aspects:
(1) Check for sentences which need to be deleted or rewritten to make the passage clearer.
(2) Check for grammatical errors or mistakes which make the passage difficult to understand.
(3) Check for transitional words or sentences which are needed to make the essay more logical and smoother.
(4) Check for words used wrongly, or with a wrong connotation, or which are ambiguous.
Efforts should be made to help students to realize what a good sentence is like and what kinds of sentences
are ungrammatical. The teacher can list those sentences in the students drafts and discuss with the students what
can be done to improve them. Comparison between the original sentences and the improved ones is needed to
develop the students awareness.
During the group revisions, the readers are encouraged to express their opinions directly and specifically, not
fear that they will offend the writer since the purpose of peer feedback is to cooperate rather than to criticize. The

27
 Error correction strategies in students written work

writers are encouraged to listen carefully, offer some explanation, participate in the interaction actively, and later
revise their drafts based on their understanding of the peer feedback. In general, an active reader brings to the
work a critical eye, and acts as a provider of suggestions, and simplifier of tasks.
4.2 Direct method: Teacher correction
Whenever the student cannot understand indirect corrections, direct method should be used. Often, semantic
errors must be corrected in the most direct way possible, because the semantic range of 2 words in 2 languages
may have no analogue or only partly coincide.
Cohen (1975) found that the procedure of returning papers to students without charting the error types over
time had made impossible precise diagnosis of student problems. Several researchers recommend that teachers
record each students errors on diagnostic charts in order to reveal the linguistic features that are causing the
students learning problems (Corder, 1973; Cohen, 1975; Cohen & Robbins, 1976). Hendrickson (1978) remarked
that error charts are helpful not only for diagnostic purposes, but also for developing individualized teaching
materials, and for establishing a hierarchy of error correction priorities.
To insure that a student profits from teacher correction, the teacher may select several errors for each student
that must be eliminated from subsequent compositions. Alternatively, the teacher may ask the student to write
several sentences based on the corrected sentence patterns or on the corrected grammar points.
In sum, research has not proven the superiority of any one error correction technique over another. Several
researchers believe that self-correction and peer-correction may do more to eradicate errors than teacher
correction. The teacher probably has to adopt any correction strategies that he himself considers effective in his
teaching situation and that makes the writing of a foreign language a more active learning experience. To insure
the effectiveness of error correction, the teacher must correct errors consistently and precisely, keep a record of the
errors each student commits, and make sure that the student has written several sentences based on the correct
form.

5. Conclusion

This study is merely an attempt to work out, partly based on related research, some guidelines for error
correction that will help to eliminate errors, and facilitate learning and teaching in writing. It is hoped that more
teachers would take interest in doing research in this area so as to develop innovative criteria of error gravity and
correction techniques that will prove useful and rewarding to students as well as to the teachers.

References:
Allwright, R. L.. 1975. Problems in the study of teachers treatment of learner error. In: Marina, K. B. & Heidi, C. D.. (Eds.). On
TESOL, 75, 96-109.
Cohen, A. D.. 1975. Error correction and the training of language teachers. Modern Language Journal, Vol. LIX (8), 414-422.
Cohen & Robbins, M.. 1976. Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners
characteristics, and learners explanation. Language Learning, 26, 45-66.
Corder, S. P.. 1973. Introducing applied linguistics. London: Penguin Books.
Dresdner, M. P.. 1973. Your students errors can help you. English Language Journal, 4(1), 5-8.
Duskova, L.. 1969. On sources of errors in foreign language learning. IRAL, Vol. 7, 11-36.
Hendrickson, J. M.. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language
Journal, 62, 381-392.
Holley, F. M. & King, J. K.. 1971. Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 55(8), 494-498.
Walz, J.. 1982. Error correction techniques for the EFL classroom. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
(Edited by Sunny and Cathy)

28
Copyright of US-China Foreign Language is the property of David Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.