The Relationship between teachers and students preferences for error correction strategies in classroom conversation

Abstract

ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' AND STUDENTS' PREFERENCES FOR ERROR CORRECTION STRATEGIES IN CLASSROOM CONVERSATION Attitudes of teachers, researchers, and students towards the errors of foreign language learners and treatment of them have been affected by the methodological shifts in language learning. In keeping with this trend, errors are considered a natural part of the learning process. This shift has affected the strategies that teachers use to correct learners' errors. Traditionally, teachers have used explicit error correction strategies, since, in the period of Behaviorism, when teacher- centred learning was dominant, teachers felt a responsibility for correcting students' errors. As a result, they used explicit strategies and students expected teachers to use these strategies. However, in the process of shifting from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred approach, teachers started to use more implicit error correction strategies in which teachers prompt students to discover their own errors and correct them. In Turkey, due to the traditional educational system, language learning is still viewed as process of memorization rather than hypotheses-testing. Therefore, it is hypothesized in this study that EFL students will prefer more explicit strategies as a result of their educational training, while EFLteachers will prefer more Implicit error correction strategies. Since classroom research indicates that teachers tend to modify their speech to the students depending on their proficiency level, it is felt that these strategy preferences will be conditioned by the students proficiency level. Research has also shown that the proficiency level of the students is a significant factor in the approach used in teaching. So, it is hypothesized in this study that teachers will change their preferences depending on the proficiency level of the students; that is, teachers of elementary level students will prefer more explicit strategies compared with those of the advanced level. As for the students themselves, since advanced level students have more confidence in their ability to communicate, it is assumed that they will prefer more implicit correction strategies compared with those at the elementary level. The purpose of this study was to investigate EFL teachers' and students' preferences for error correction strategies in classroom conversation and the extent to which these preferences are affected by the proficiency levels of the students. This research was conducted with two groups of students - elementary and advanced level- and a group of teachers who teach at both elementary and advanced level at TOMER, a language teaching centre at AnkaraUniversity in Turkey. Twenty students from the Turkish student population studying EFL at TOMER, ten elementary and ten advanced level, were randomly selected, using stratified random sampling. Ten teachers were selected from the teacher list. Then, subjects were instructed to fill out the questionnaire, indicating preferences for error correction strategies in classroom conversation. After the collection procedure, data were analyzed using t-tests and a 2-way analysis of variance in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Two Spearman Rank Order Correlations. The results of the study show that there is a significant difference between EFL teachers and students' preferences for correction strategies of grammar and pronunciation errors in classroom conversation. In general, students preferred more explicit strategies than did teachers while teachers preferred more implicit strategies than students did. The proficiency level of the students also affected the subjects' preferences for error correction strategies. It was observed that elementary level students preferred more explicit strategies compared with advanced level students. The proficiency level of the students also affected teachers' preferences but not significantly. There was also an interaction between the main effects of status (teacher or student) and proficiency level.