Teachers and students preferences for written error correction techniques

Abstract

ABSTRACT Title: Teachers' and students' preferences for written error correction techniques Author: Selma Yılmaz Thesis Chairperson: Dr. Theodore S. Rodgers, Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Susan D. Bosher Ms. Bena Gül Peker, MA TEFL Program The treatment of learner errors has long been the subject of debate in second and foreign language teaching. Recommendations have changed in line with shifts in methodology. For example, in teaching writing as process, errors are treated in the editing stage, whereas in the traditional writing as product approach errors are treated in the first draft since students are not required to write any more drafts. Researchers and teachers have attempted to identify error editing techniques that do not interfere with the flow of meaning. This research study explored teachers' and students. attitudes toward error correction in writing as process, which techniques teachers use while correcting errors and which techniques teachers report using. The major question concerned the difference between teachers' and students' preferences for written error correction techniques. Another major question was about the difference between teachers ' reported and actual usage of error correction techniques.The participants were 16 teachers and 3 0 students from BUSEL, Bilkent University the School of English Language. Teacher and student questionnaires were used to gather data for this study. Data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations. For the comparison of teachers' and students' preferences, independent sample t -tests and Pearson product -moment correlation coefficients were run. The results indicate that both teachers and students think error correction is useful and that the most important aspect of error correction in writing is the correction of grammatical errors rather than the correction of errors in vocabulary choice, spelling and punctuation. With regards to how many errors students would like their teachers to correct, the results indicate that students want their teachers to correct all errors and they do not approve no correction. However, teachers report that the extent of error correction depends on the student and the amount of time they have. Regarding teachers' and students preferences for error correction techniques results indicate that students want more explicit techniques such as crossing out the incorrect item and writing in the correct form. Teachers report that they use the techniques of using codes and also underlying the errors and writing in the correctform. In actual practice teachers tend to use codes to indicate errors more than the other technique. The results indicate that although teachers ' and students ' attitudes are similar in some aspects of error correction, their preferences for error correction techniques are different. The findings suggest important pedagogical implications about teachers' behavior with regards to correction. It is recommended that teachers determine students' preferences for error correction at the beginning of a writing course and give feedback on errors taking students' preferences into consideration.