Correcting written work

Correcting written work

Can you remember how you felt as a learner when your teacher returned a piece of written
work? Many learners say they want to have all their mistakes corrected, and some teachers
still believe it is a good thing to correct every mistake, but it can be very discouraging to see
your work covered in red marks, with corrections written in between the lines, and a single
word at the end, or maybe just a tick.

The key question for teachers to ask themselves is what students learn from this kind of total
correction. The answer is probably very little. If everything is corrected, learners will
probably look over their work without thinking enough about any individual mistakes. Even
if they do pay more attention to the corrections, this method does not involve them in any
kind of learning process – they simply look at the corrections and their teachers hope this
means that they will not make the same mistakes again.

Alternative methods for correcting written work

Selective correction
With this method the teacher still gives corrections, but focuses on one or two areas that are
relevant to what learners are learning at that particular time (e.g. verb tenses, the use of
prepositions) while ignoring other mistakes. The learners are told in advance what the
correction focus will be, which should make them think more carefully about this area when
they are writing.

Signposting
One way of getting learners to take a more active part in the correction process is just to
indicate where there are mistakes, leaving learners to think about what is wrong with what
they have written and correct it themselves. The ‘signpost’ can be a mark in the margin,
indicating that there is a mistake in a particular line (or two marks if there are two separate
mistakes in one line), or the mistake can be underlined, giving the learner a precise indication
of where the mistake is. Again, it may be more helpful to the learner not to signpost every
mistake, but to focus on repeated ones in language they have already learnt.

A correction code
Another method that involves learners and makes them think about how they can correct their
own work is the use of a ‘correction code’. This is a set of letters and symbols which make it
clear what kind of mistake has been made. For this method to work well, it is important to
keep the number of symbols to a minimum and for all the learners in the class to know the
code. If two colleagues are teaching the same class, they also need to agree on a common
code to avoid any confusion.

In the box below there is an example of a correction code. It is only an example – you may
prefer to use more or fewer symbols, or to create some of your own. The important thing is
that learners are absolutely clear about what each of the symbols means.

[style box and text below- use different font from main text]

© Cambridge University Press 2011

Correcting written work

Correction code

g = grammar
p = punctuation
v = vocabulary (wrong word)
prep. = preposition
? = I don’t understand what you have written. Please explain.
Sp = spelling
w.o. = word order
T = wrong verb tense
wf = wrong form
n = number / agreement (singular vs. plural)
^ = something missing
Ø = not necessary

With both signposting and a correction code, the teacher introduces an extra stage of learning.
Instead of just receiving corrections, learners have to identify, or at least think about, the kind
of mistake they have made, and correct their own work. This is useful because we remember
things much better when we have to make an effort to find the answers ourselves.

A correction code also means that rather than correcting every mistake, the teacher has to
think about why the learner has made a mistake and whether to highlight everything. Is it just
a careless mistake that could be made by a native speaker? In this case it may not even be
necessary to point it out. Or is it a mistake that is repeated throughout, which might be
because of first language interference? Or is it the result of the learner being ambitious and
attempting to find a way of expressing something which is beyond his or her current level? If
this is the case, the teacher needs to think about whether or not the learner will be able to self-
correct it.

Managing self-correction of written work in the classroom

Individual self-correction
Here, learners attempt to discover the problems, make their own corrections (perhaps using a
different coloured pen) and return their work to the teacher. This gives the learner the
opportunity to reflect on their mistakes and make improvements to their writing. It also
shows the teacher what the learners are able to do and what still remains difficult or
unknown. The teacher now has to check the corrections, and give the learner feedback on
anything that is still wrong or that the learner has been unable to improve.

Peer correction
For peer correction, learners work in pairs or small groups. They exchange their written work
and attempt to correct each other’s work. Again, the teacher has to build in an extra checking
stage, as learners will often not be able to provide appropriate corrections. However, as with
individual self-correction, the learners have to go through a process of reconsidering what
they have written.

© Cambridge University Press 2011

Correcting written work

Whole-class correction

In this technique, the teacher selects several common mistakes made by the learners and
highlights them on the board for the whole class. Learners then continue to correct their own
work, either individually or in pairs or small groups.

Dealing with mistakes that learners cannot correct themselves

Teacher feedback
Once the learners have corrected as much as they can, the teacher can concentrate on the
remaining mistakes. The teacher may prefer to focus on just some of these so as not to
overload the learners. Rather than just getting corrections, learners need to understand why
they have made the mistake and how to put it right. They need feedback from the teacher –
some kind of explanation of the particular language point and perhaps one or two examples to
show them how the language should work. Ideally, feedback would take place in a one-to-one
tutorial session, but with a large class this may not be practical, and feedback can take the
form of written notes at the end of the learner’s work.

Remedial teaching
If learners repeatedly make the same mistakes in language which they have already been
taught, or are unable to correct this language themselves, the best response from the teacher
may be to use these mistakes as the basis for planning remedial teaching in future lessons, i.e.
to teach again or revise the language which is causing problems.

© Cambridge University Press 2011