Guido Monography

Guido Armando Boaventura
A Proposal to Improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in English

Language Classes
The Case of ESAM Secondary School - Grade 10- A2, Day Shift
Universidade Rovuma
Nampula
2021
ii
A Proposal to Improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in English

Language Classes
The Case of EASMSecondary School - Grade 10- A1, Day Shift
Monograph to be submitted to the

Department of Sciences of Language,
Communication and Arts in partial
fulfillment of Licenciatura degree in English
Language Teaching.
Supervisor: ErasmoTocota, MA
Universidade Rovuma
Nampula
2021
iii
Content page
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables and Charts................................................................................................vii
List of Appendix............................................................................................................viii
Declaration.......................................................................................................................ix
Dedication..........................................................................................................................x
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................xi
Abstract...........................................................................................................................xii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................13
1.2 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................14
1.3 Scope of the Study.....................................................................................................14
1.4 Purpose......................................................................................................................14
1.5 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................14
Research Questions.........................................................................................................15
1.7 Hypotheses................................................................................................................15
1.8 Site of the Study........................................................................................................15
1.9 Merit of the Study......................................................................................................15
. Work structure...............................................................................................................16
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................17
2.1Error............................................................................................................................17
2.2 The Differences between Slips, Errors and Mistakes................................................17
2.3 Types of errors...........................................................................................................18
2.3.1 Productive errors....................................................................................................19
2.3.2 Receptive errors......................................................................................................19
2.3.3 Systematic errors....................................................................................................19

iv
2.3.4 Local errors.............................................................................................................19
2.3.5 Global Errors..........................................................................................................19
2.4 Main Categories of Errors.........................................................................................20
2.4.1 Omission.................................................................................................................20
2.4.2 Selection.................................................................................................................21
2.4.3 Addition..................................................................................................................21
2.4.4 Ordering..................................................................................................................22
2.5 Basic Principles of positive Error Correction............................................................22
2.6 Strategies for dealing with oral Errors.......................................................................22
2.6.1 Strategies for correcting Errors..............................................................................23
2.6.2 Delayed correction technique.................................................................................24
2.7 Dealing with Oral Errors in different Stages of a Lesson.........................................25
2.7.1 Correcting oral errors at the beginning of the lesson.............................................26
2.7.2 Correcting oral errors during less controlled and guided phases...........................26
2.7.3 Correcting oral errors after the production stage based on fluency activity...........26
2.7.4 Correcting Learners’ Errors in Groups...................................................................27
2.8 Approaches to Error Correction................................................................................27
2. 11 Error treatment........................................................................................................28
2.11.1 Should learner errors be corrected?......................................................................28
2.11.2 When should learner errors be corrected?............................................................28
2.11.3 Which errors should be corrected?.......................................................................28
2.11.4 How should Learner's errors be corrected?..........................................................29
2.11.5 Who Should Treat Learner's Errors?....................................................................29
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................30
3.1. Research paradigm...................................................................................................30
3.2 Research Approach....................................................................................................30
3.3 Research Design........................................................................................................30

v
3.4 Target population.......................................................................................................30
3.5 Sample.......................................................................................................................31
3.6 Means of data collection............................................................................................32
3.7 Procedures.................................................................................................................32
3.8 Data analysis techniques............................................................................................32
3.9 Limitations of the study.............................................................................................33
CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS.......................................34
4.1 Data from classroom observation..............................................................................34
4.2 Data from students’ questionnaires...........................................................................35
4.3 Data from the teachers’ questionnaire.......................................................................38
4.4 Data Interpretation and Discussion...........................................................................39
4.5 Examining Hypotheses..............................................................................................42
CHAPTER V: PROPOSAL, IMPLEMENT, RECOMEN. AND CONCLUSION........44
5.1 Proposal.....................................................................................................................44
5.2. Implementation.........................................................................................................46
5.3 Recommendations.....................................................................................................47
5.2 Conclusion.................................................................................................................48
References.......................................................................................................................49
APPENDIX.....................................................................................................................51
vi
Abbreviations
CLT – Communicative Language Teaching

CUP – Cambridge University Press
ESL – English as a Second Language
IL – Interlanguage
LL – Language Learning
L2 – Second Language
OUP – Oxford University Press
S – Student
Ss – Students
TL – Target Language
vii
List of Tables and Charts
Table 1 ………………………………………………………………………….……...31
Table 2 ……………………………………………………………………………...….31
Table 3 ……………………………………………………………………………....…31
Chart 1 …………………………………………………………………………..….….35
Chart 2 …………………………………………………………………………….…...35
Chart 3 ………………………………………………………………………………....36
Chart 4 ………………………………………………………………………………....36
Chart 5 ………………………………………………………………………………....37
Chart 6 ……………………………………………………………………………...….37
viii
ix
List of Appendix
Appendix AI: Classroom Observation form……………………………………..…….52
Appendix AII: Brief Description of Classroom activity…………………………...…..53
Appendix B I: Students Questionnaire…………………………………………………54
Appendix B II : Teachers Questionnaire…………………………………………...…..56

x
Declaration
I hereby declare that this work entitled “A Proposal to Improving Oral Error Correction
Techniques in English Language Classes” was genuinely done by me, through my own
research based on the UniRovuma guideline and an outstanding support from my
supervisor. Its content remains original and every researched book has accurately been
quoted and listed in the bibliography.
I truly affirm that this research has never been presented to any institution to attain any
academic degree or for any other purposes.
February _____, 2022
Signed_____________________________

xi
Dedication
I dedicate this work to my wife Estefânia and children Clésio, Mouzinho and Chelton.
xii
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to my supervisor ErasmoTocota, MA for his immense contribution

and unconditional assistance from the beginning through to the end of this paper. I am
particularly touched by his quick response to my request for guidance. I will remain
indebted for the rest of my life.
I am equally indebted to all my lecturers, in particularly of ELT for their constructive

role in my studies.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to all my class mates, especially Omar for his
psychological support in the hardest moments of my studies.
My special thanks go to my wifefor her care and endurance during my education and to
my children for theirimmense patience. To my brother Botomane I would like to say
millions of thanks.
One name that cannot be left out of our lives, my greatest appreciation to the Almighty
God for the strength and wisdom given unto me to start and finish this research.
Thank you all.

xiii
Abstract
This paper entitled A Proposal for improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in English
Language Classaims to examine whether the teacher’s way of oral error correction affect
students’ participation in oral activities in English language classes at ESAM Secondary School,
particularly in Grade 10, Stream A-2, day shift. More importantly, it seeks effective techniques
for oral error correction. The study used qualitative and quantitative methods and data was
collected through class observation and questionnaires. In relation to the former means, the
researcher observed four lessons delivered by the host teachers and with the latter he gathered
views from teachers and learners on the subject. To put it clear, the study consisted of a sample
of 3 male teachers and 52 students of both sexes drawn randomly in a universe of 440 potential
respondents. Unsurprisingly, the findings showed that, in fact, students’ unwillingness to answer
question or speak derives mostly from ineffective oral error correction techniques that teachers
use. They exclusively use direct correction at the expense of other effective techniques such as
self-correction, peer correction and feedback. That is, students’ fear to utter words is caused by
the teachers’ reactions to mistakes when they occur. In a nut shell, teachers’ strategies and
techniques for error correction discourage students to speak. This paper, however, proposes
practical techniques that teachers can use to deal with oral errors successfully. They range from
supplying the correct form to the speaker, through repetition by the speaker, to providing clues.
The study also brings theories that remind both teachers and students that mistakes are an
integral part of language learning.
Key words: correction, oral, error and technique

13
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Background to the problem
Error correction is seen as a form of feedback given to learners on their language use.
No teacher can deny the fact that correcting the errors made by students when they
speak or write is one of the most difficult tasks in language acquisition.Thus, every
language practitioner or teacher should consider some the following issues about error
correction: the difference between a mistake and an error, how much correction should
be made, at what phases the teacher should correct the error and how the teacher can
correct the learner without de-motivating him/her.
Error correction and its importance in the foreign language classroom have received
considerable attention during the past decades. According to Corder (1967), correcting
learners’ errors is substantial in three different ways: First, they tell the teacher about
the progress of the learner, and therefore what remains to be learnt. Second, they supply
evidence of how a language is acquired and what strategies the learner employs in
learning a language. Thirdly, they are indisputable to the learning process because
making errors is regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn.
In language classroom, oral communication is themost common form which takes place.
In this regard, Lynch (1996) says "Teachers and studentscommunicate and interact
orally while they read, discuss topics, ask or answer questions ".When students
participate orally without hesitation and without concentration on errors, theycan
communicate in L2 fluently. Hendrickson (1987) points out "the emphasis is on the
creation of an atmosphere in which students want to talk. Such emphasis leads learners
to feel free during their speech without fearing the occurrence of errors". In fact, the
basic problem is not why or when a learner commits an error, but the problem is that
what techniques are needed to respond to that error. Bartram and Walton, (1991)
pointed out "all students make errors, and all teachers react to them. Some teachers react
by doing nothing; others react too severely.
Therefore, this study aims to help English teachers, particularly from ESAM Secondary
School, find appropriate oral error correction techniques and students to consider some very
important issues about understanding the significance of error correction in the process of
14
English language learning, such as: how much correction should be made, at what phases
the teacher should correct the error and how the teacher can correct the learner without de-
motivating him/her.
1.2 Statement of the problem
In the Teaching Practice IV, the researcher noticed that most students were reluctant to
answer teacher’s questions, including the simplest ones, or to speak. This problem,
therefore, triggered the researcher’s strong will to examine whether there was any
relation between their reluctance to speak and the error correction techniques employed
by the teacher.
1.3 Scope of the Study
The following study is chiefly concerned with students’ apparent unwillingness to

answer teacher’s questions or speak. It took place at ESAM Secondary School in 2020,
and it involved day shift students of grade 10, stream A-2.
1.4 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to uncover factors behind students’ unwillingness to answer
teacher’s oral questions and to propose suitable strategies for error correction. In other
words, it examines whether the teacher’s way of error correction affected students’
participation in oral activities.
1.5 Specific Objectives
The study unfolded with the following specific objectives:

 Examine reasons that prevent students from answering oral questions;
 Identify techniques teachers use for error correction;
 Equip teachers with effective techniques tools for oral error correction;
 Raise students’ awareness about the significance of oral error correction in the
process of language learning;
15
Research Questions
For this study the researcher addressed the questions below:

 Who should do the correction?
 Should all learners’ errors be corrected?
 When should learners’ errors be corrected?
 How should errors be corrected?
1.7 Hypotheses
The researchers formulated the following hypotheses which are in agreement with the
research questions stated above. He believes, therefore, that they will provide answer to
the problem encountered in ESAM Secondary School, more precisely in grade 10.
 Both teacher and students should do the correction;
 Only those errors that hinder communication should be corrected;
 Learners’ errors should be corrected in the end of an oral activity;
 Errors should be corrected mainly through self and peer correction;
1.8 Site of the Study
The setting of this study was ESAM Secondary School. It is the largest public
secondary school in the district of Mecanhelas in Niassa province. It has 14 partially
furnitured classrooms for a population of about 2000 students in two shifts.
1.9 Merit of the Study
As stated earlier, in the observation phase the researcher noticed that most students were
reluctant to speak English language in class, particularly when the teacher asked them
questions. One possible reason was that they feared to make mistakes. In the light of
this problem, the researcher embarked on this study aiming to examine whether the
teacher’s way of error correction affected students’ participation in oral activities and
proposing suitable strategies for oral error correction. In so doing, he hopes to boost
students’ interest in expressing their opinions and ideas, thoughts and feelings in their
every day life in English. In addition, this study will equip teachers with right tools for
16
copy with students’ oral errors and mistakes. Overall, the results of this study will lend a
hand in the teaching and learning of speaking skills in our schools.
. Work structure
Apart from the last section devoted to bibliography and attachments, this paper is
organized in the following way:
The first chapter includes back ground information, the research problem, objectives,
research questions and hypotheses. Next, chapter II reviews the most important recent
works of relevance to this study. Chapter III presents the research methodology used,
which is then followed by chapter IV that presents and discusses the findings. Finally,
chapter V outlines the proposal, implementation and draws the recommendations and
conclusions.
17
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is devoted to building a conceptual framework for our research which
centers on the strategies for oral errors correction in language class. It serves as a solid
grounding from which this research paper can develop. Before coming into details
concerning the techniques for oral correction, the researcher found it crucial to start by
discussing some related concepts.
2.1Error
It has been defined in different ways by different writers. It implies distinctive meanings
and usage to how it is conceptually applied. The concrete meaning of the Latin word
“error” which in English is also termed error is “wondering” or “straying”. In language
learning process, error refers to the deviant form from the language produced by the
second language or foreign language learners. According to James (1998:10), “error
refers to the production of a linguistic form which deviates from the correct form”.
Allwright and Bailey (1995:45) in their turn define errors as “linguistic forms or content
that differed from native speakers’ norms or facts”. Harmer (2007:96) defines errors as
“mistakes which language learners can’t correct themselves and which, therefore, need
explanation”. Moreover, Porte (1993:32) views errors as a demonstration of a fault at a
deeper level, something that has not been learnt or assimilated before or whose correct
version is unknown by the speaker.
However, Porte’s definition seems to concern itself with the source of error and not
what constitutes an error.
In the researcher’s opinion all definitions have much in common. That is , error is a
deviation from the native speaker’s norms or rules.
2.2 The Differences between Slips, Errors and Mistakes
There is great possibility of people considering slips, errors and mistakes as the same
terms but in fact they are not. An error is not self-corrigible by its learner; it is caused
by failure in competence and is significant for the process of language learning because
it reflects knowledge. On the other hand, a mistake refers to a self-corrigible fault not
caused by incompetence but performance.
18
Mattson and Boars (1992:141) argue that, Slips are self – correctable without benefit of
a feedback from someone else. Coming back to this point, value the example below: An
English speaker may be willing to write a word like playing but unconsciously she
writes paying a while .reading, she corrects herself into its right form. This shows that,
the right form was already in the mind of the learner but the fingers betrayed her (failed
to write it correctly). So, Slips are deviations from the language code make her correct
herself without any help someone else. In other utterances, language learners provide a
sort of feedback or self – correction (one's intuition).
Differently from Slips, George (1972:281) defines mistakes as self – correctable only
with the benefit of feedback from the knower. Knower under reference can be a teacher
or someone else who, mastered the language and has ability to correct other learners.
Here, George looks at mistakes as the deviation from the language code on the part of
the language learner which can only be corrected by a teacher or from someone else
who has mastered the language. For instance, a language learner may wish to write the
word borrow but he writes borrow because he has forgotten its right form, or did not
take much care when writing it, he misjudged or ignored it totally. The learner may
read the wrong form he has produced for several times, but failing to recognize its right
form unless someone reminds him or corrects him. That is, to say, a mistake is deviation
from the norm of the language.
Hedge (2000: 289) also states that a mistake is caused through inability to perform
knowledge in production because of factors which have to do with carelessness,
tiredness, distractions, or difficult circumstances such as talking on a faulty telephone
line and having to respond to partly heard messages.
2.3 Types of errors
Richards (1983:24) states that errors can be classified as productive, receptive or global,
systematic, and local.
Apart from Richard, Corder (op. cit. 261) views three types of errors, such as global,
inference and local.
19
2.3.1 Productive errors
Productive errors are those which occur in the language learners' utterances (in the
speech).
2.3.2 Receptive errors
Receptive errors which can also be termed as global errors are those which result in the
listener’s misunderstanding of the speaker’s intentions. This type of errors prevents a
listener from understanding messages and so obstructs communication. Example: If a
person responds I am fifteen to a question like “where do you live?” it can be assumed
that the person did not understand the content of the message.
2.3.3 Systematic errors
Systematic errors are consistent errors in learner’s language output which indicate that
they are constructing and operating a system for understanding and producing language.
They are evidence of a learner’s current stage of inter - language and which are to do
with incomplete or faulty knowledge of English.
2.3.4 Local errors
For Richards (1983:24), Local errors are those which relate to only part of a message
and do not prevent comprehension.
2.3.5 Global Errors
Corder states that Global Errors are those which affect the whole sentence and can
either be spoken or written form. Example, the learner might say I am live in Faina.
Looking at this example, the language teacher could have marked it as erroneous
because the whole sentence structure is affected.
Corder looks local error as a type of error which affects a particular part of the sentence.
For example: I wented to School yesterday. Actually, the only problem with this
sentence is wented. This type of error is most of the time committed by English learners
who have some notion about the language while in the first example; such errors are
20
mostly committed by beginners. That is to say; global errors are mostly committed by
the beginners and local errors intermediate or advanced English learners.
Interference errors are viewed as natural part of learning. This type of errors occurs
when second language leaner slips unconsciously into his first language especially if he
does not know the required target language he tends to borrow an L1 substitute.
Note that, not all the types of errors can hinder one's comprehension; some have little
effects in the case of local errors.
Although Chinodya and Corder have grouped errors differently, they are all sharing the
same view directly or indirectly. Chinodya has grouped errors into productive and
receptive but they are reflected in the types of errors that Corder has identified. That is
to say, productive and receptive errors (speaking, writing, listening and reading) can
also be realized as global local and interference errors depending on how they are
committed.
2.4 Main Categories of Errors
According to Corder (1973:277) errors fall into four main categories: omission of some
required elements; addition of some unnecessary or incorrect elements; selection of an
incorrect element and disordering of elements.
2.4.1 Omission
In this category, learners leave out certain linguistic forms because of their complexity
in production. Pronouncing consonant clusters, for example, often creates problems for
foreign learners and some of their constituent may be left unpronounced.
It should be noted that this phenomenon is not only restricted to foreign language
learners but is also observed in native speakers, however the difference is that native
speakers tend to follow existing conventions, while foreign language learners do not.
Omission also takes place in morphology where learners often leave out the third person
singular morpheme- s, the plural markers- s and the past tense inflection 'ed'.
For example:
a) The engine move slowly.
b) We are visiting two place this weekend.
c) I cook this food yesterday.
21
In the example a), the learner has omitted unconsciously the morpheme "s" for a word
move and plural marker - "s" for the word place in example b). in example c), the
learner has omitted inflectional - "ed" for the word cook.
Some errors under omission can be identified in Syntax, for example; the learner might
say, “already I did it" Instead of saying "we did it already". A part from Syntax, some
erros can also be identified in idiomatic expressions, for example, the learner might say,
“so I do", instead of saying, "so do I ".
The omissions of certain linguistic elements occurs not only with foreign language
learners but it also be observed with native speakers, so the important thing to bear in
mind is the way of how to correct these systematic deviations from the learners.
2.4.2 Selection
Selection has to do with committing errors in pronunciation, syntax, vocabulary due to

the selection of the wrong phoneme, morpheme and structure or vocabulary item. An
error can be committed in morphology as a result of the selection of a wrong morpheme.
For example: the learner can use –es instead of –er for the comparative, producing a
sentence like André is oldest than me instead of André is older than me.
At the syntax level the learner may select a wrong structure, example:" they want she
comes here", instead of "I want her to come here". This error may occur due to
overgeneralization. At the lexical level learners sometimes select words which do not
entirely convey their intended meanings. Example: A bird may simply be referred to as
a robin. This error may be committed by the strategy of approximation.
2.4.3 Addition
Addition has to do with insertion of redundant element (s) in a sentence or a word. In

morphology learners often over-use the third person singular morpheme –s and the
plural marker-s. For example: A learner may say- I thinks and The pens is on the table;
instead of saying I think and The pen is on the table.
At the syntactic level the leaner may produce a wrong combination, such as using an
article with a place name or a person’s name: The Nampula, The Mário instead of
Nampula and Mário.
22
2.4.4 Ordering
Ordering consists of shifting the position of certain words or phonemes (in

pronunciation). A speaker may say fignificant instead of significant.
At the lexical level the learner may reverse elements of a compound word. The learner
may say key car instead of car key.
With respect to the categories of errors, it can be concluded that when the learner
commits any category of errors above discussed, the teacher should know how, when
and what errors to correct so that he/she can avoid embarrassing students as they
produce the language they are learning; again if the teacher fails to observe these
aspects (how, when and what to correct) the students may lose motivation and
consequently learning may not take place properly. Yet, the teacher may lose a good
opportunity to see what students have learned and what they still need to be taught.
2.5 Basic Principles of positive Error Correction
According to Doff (1988:189) there are four basic principles of positive error correction
which are:
 Praise students for correct answers, and even for partly correct answers; in this
way they will feel they are making progress;
 Avoid humiliating students or making them feel that making an error is bad;
 As far as possible, encourage the students focusing on what they have right and
not what they have got wrong;
 Correct errors quickly; if too much time is spent over correcting errors it gives
them too much importance and holds up the lesson.
2.6 Strategies for dealing with oral Errors
Before describing some criteria for dealing with errors, it is worth looking at the
concept of strategy. According to Quirk (1995:1426), it is a well planned series of
actions for achieving an aim.
23
2.6.1 Strategies for correcting Errors
With regards to strategies for error correction, James (1998:23) suggests the following:
For him, learners can vary in terms of personality characteristics, learning styles,
learning strategies and learning preferences. Therefore, the feedback we supply our
learners regarding their errors should also vary. Some learners feel that being corrected
directly destroys their confidence and leads to feelings of exclusion while others want to
be corrected once noticed.
This technique is used for dealing with errors as they occur. It consists of:
 Using fingers. For example, to highlight an incorrect form or to indicate a word
order error.
 Gestures- consist of using hand gestures to indicate the use of wrong tenses.
 Mouthing. This is useful with pronunciation errors. The teacher mouths the
correct pronunciation without making sound.
 Reformulation- consists of correcting the student without plainly telling him/her
that he/she committed an error. For example, the students said: I went in
Namapa.
 The teacher says: oh really. You went to Namapa, didn’t you?
The author of this paper believes that this technique can be productive in our context
since it does not require the teacher to bring into the classroom teaching aids.
Kaufman (1993:201) states that, learners may have different preferences on how to be
corrected their errors. Others may prefer explicit correction while others implicit
correction.
Schachter (1974:204) says that, explicit correction is a type of correction that a teacher
tells the learner on the spot that he has committed an error. For instance, the
learner ,might say, I go to School yesterday and immediately the teacher corrects him,
saying do not say go, say went. On the other, implicit correction is when the teacher
accepts the error and then tries to correct it using questions. For example, in attempt to
correct erroneous sentence I go to School yesterday, the teacher may say, really? You
mean you went to School yesterday? Did you enjoy your lessons? So looking at this
example, the teacher does not provide a direct correction. The researcher believes that,
both types of correction are applicable. However, teacher should be much careful with
explicit type of correction because they may tell learners that making errors is bad. So,
24
when employing this type of correction, teachers should bear in mind that learners'
errors play a role as something developmental in the teaching learning process. Looking
at implicit type of correction, the teacher should give feedback of the corrected form.
However, both types of correction ´can be used interchangeably.
2.6.2 Delayed correction technique
It consist of noting down the students’ errors and correcting them after a communication
activity, either on individual basis, that is, focusing on each student’s for the class as a
whole.
Pedagogically error correction focuses on accuracy of linguistic forms and the effect of
correction is vital. Meanwhile, acceptability of learner is also one of the important
factors which influence the effect of error correction, McGroarty (1989:94).
In the traditional instruction environment, because the focus of classroom instruction is

on accuracy, errors are frequently corrected. Yet with the popularity of CLT in ESL
context the understanding of ‘inter-languages’, the role of error correction has changed.
Errors are considered as natural products in LL and in fact reflect the problems of the
students developing inter-languages system. Wright (1987:28)
Thus errors are no longer the thorns in the teacher’s flash that need immediate picking.
It is advocated that errors should be treated with care and in a humanistic manner.
First of all it is important that teachers form the concept that not all errors need to be
corrected after they are committed. To decide when to give corrective feedback,
teachers can take the frequency of error as a norm. Some errors are frequent and may be
slips of the tongue. These errors mostly can be corrected by the students themselves. As
for persistent errors, especially those shared by most students, teachers should correct
them consistently. Besides, teachers need to discern global errors which interfere with
understanding from local errors which may not hinder comprehension. Moreover the
timing of correction depends on the purpose of the classroom activities.
25
If the goal is to have a student to express themselves, it is better that the teacher doesn’t
interrupt immediately. If the focus is on form then it is useful to correct errors to
enhance students’ accuracy.
The teacher should not only know when to treat errors, but also how to do errors
correction. To avoid the potential risk of discouraging students’ self-correction with
teachers or peer’s help is encouraged. By so doing, students are provided with more
opportunities to accomplish his or her task and thus to obtain a sense of achievement.
This kind of approach creates a friendlier atmosphere than the teacher’s correction
would hurt students feeling and should always be an eschewed.
Teacher’s correction can be beneficial when errors are repeatedly made by most
students.
In fact it can be applied without necessarily make students feel embarrassed or
threatened.
For example, teachers can postpone the correction till the end of an activity or a class
period and discuss with the students in the class.
Excessive error correction could frustrate students and smother students’ motivation of
learning the language.
It is believed that motivation is a combination of personal factors, beliefs, attitudes and
personal needs, therefore it is really important for teachers to have ‘good timing’ and
use ‘appropriate’ correction strategies.
2.7 Dealing with Oral Errors in different Stages of a Lesson
In the presentation stage or during the early stages of the practice phase of a lesson the
teacher should correct all errors (Baker & Westrup, 2000:80). This is done so that
students know which aspects they commit errors from. In the later stages of the practice
stage, teachers will continue to correct, but, as students improve, this will not happen so
often. In the production or fluency stage, correction usually comes at the end of the
lesson or at the beginning of the next lesson.
The next section will present some useful techniques for correcting oral errors in
different stages of a lesson.
26
2.7.1 Correcting oral errors at the beginning of the lesson
Baker &Westrup (ibid) affirm that during the beginning of the lesson the teacher should
know when, who and how to correct an error. In relation to the first aspect (when), it
should be noted that teachers should correct an error directly after the student has made
it; regarding the second aspect (who), it is worth emphasizing that the teacher should
point out the error and let the student try to correct himself first. Other students can also
be asked to suggest a correct version.
Below are some techniques that can be used to correct oral errors:
1. Let the student know there is an error. It can be done by:
 Repeating the error and raise your eyebrow or make a facial expression to
show that there is an error;
 Asking other students. ‘Do you like “I come yesterday”…?’.
 Repeating the word with a rising intonation to suggest it is incorrect to say ’I
come yesterday?’
2. Help students to correct themselves and others.

3. Finger correction: this can be done by putting each of your left hands to represent a
word. Holding your palm towards you, your little finger represents the first word of the
sentence. Point to the ‘words’ with your right hand. Move from right to the left so that
the students ‘read’ from the left to right.
2.7.2 Correcting oral errors during less controlled and guided phases
While students are working in pairs or groups, the teacher should walk around
discreetly, listening to the pairs or groups and quietly repeat the correct form when there
is an error, giving the student time to repeat it and continue the flow of speech.
2.7.3 Correcting oral errors after the production stage based on fluency activity
During the activity, monitor the groups and discreetly make a written note of some
errors you hear. At the end of the activity or the next day put some of these on the board
(do not say who committed the error) and ask students to help you correct them.
If the different techniques for oral error correction presented by different authors above
are well applied, they may provide a good opportunity for all students to improve their
27
accuracy and fluency in the TL. The success of the technique (finger correction)
depends on the level of the students.
2.7.4 Correcting Learners’ Errors in Groups
Vale and Fauteen (op. cit 91) state that, correcting learrners' errors in groups reduce the
teacher's load. Indeed, it is cheap to correct learner's errors in groups than individual
because a group of learners is corrected within a short period of time. Group correction
can be done in the following way:
The teacher may ask learners to be in groups of six for example, and gives a task for
each group. The teacher moves slowly patrolling the groups. If a group commits an
error, the teacher quietly gives the correct form to that particular group and then, he
repeats the correct form giving the group time to repeat as well. After that, the teacher
moves to another group. The teacher should not take much time in one group otherwise;
he may disturb the flow of the speech, and may not have enough time to patrol the entire
group.
2.8 Approaches to Error Correction
According to Edge (1989:23-29) there are two views regarding to correction of errors.
The first view states that there is no need to correct the learner’s errors. The teacher
should not correct, but just show that an error has been committed.
The communicative approach to language teaching holds the view that the errors of
form are seen as natural outcome of the development of communicative skills. Thus,
students can have limited linguistic knowledge and still be successful communicators.
The other view holds the opinion that errors must be corrected every time they are
committed by the learners very consciously because if errors are tolerated without
making correction, bad habit of making wrong use of language goes on continuing in
the students. So, if we think that an error needs to be corrected, and if neither the student
who committed the error, nor any other student can correct it, then the teacher has to
give more help. The correction made immediately after one has committed an error is
effective. Therefore, the errors should be corrected without any delay.
28
2. 11 Error treatment
Regarding the issue of error treatment, Hendrickson (1978:132) identified a framework

composed of five questions as follows: Should learner errors be corrected? If yes,
when should they be corrected? Which errors should be corrected? How should they be
corrected? Who should correct learner errors? These questions will be answered in the
following manner:
2.11.1 Should learner errors be corrected?
According to George et al cited in Hendrickson (1978:389), when students commit

errors they need an assistance of someone who is more proficient in the language. It is
the teacher who has the traditional right to provide learners with corrective feedback
(Ellis, 1990:24). Students themselves have expressed preference for more correction
from their teachers.
2.11.2 When should learner errors be corrected?
Bolitho (1995:80) places language lessons into three categories, namely, fluency
lessons, accuracy lessons, and something in between, he recommends re-formulation
techniques in fluency lessons as they are unlikely to make students feel insecure and
embarrassed. He recommends non-delayed intervention in accuracy lessons. Moreover,
Hendrickson (1978:43) argues that there is cognitive and affective justification for
tolerating some errors produced by learners as this boosts learner confidence and instills
a feeling of success in learners. Birckbichler (in Hendrickson 1978:56) recommends that
error correction be reserved for manipulative grammar exercises and that teachers
should be more tolerant of error in communicative based activities.
2.11.3 Which errors should be corrected?
Hendrickson cites three major categories of errors that should receive priority, these are:
global errors, for instance, those that impede communication; those that stigmatize the
learner from the native speaker's perspective, and high frequency errors.
29
2.11.4 How should Learner's errors be corrected?
Holley and King (1975:178) caution against heavy-handed corrective strategies or

treatments that might frustrate or embarrass the learner. This suggests that error
correction could be counter-productive if affective matters are not taken into
consideration during correction and that teachers need to strive for the creation of a
supportive classroom environment that does not threaten learners.
Fanselow (1977) maintains that effective training in listening skills would enable
learners to distinguish between their own incorrect responses and their teachers' or
fellow students' corrected responses.
Chastain cited in(Hendrickson 1978:27) suggests re-wording an answer in an acceptable
manner, possibly in the same fashion that errors are treated in out-of-class situations, or
summarizing and ,reviewing the most common errors at the end of the lesson. Secondly,
self-correction could be encouraged by making tape recordings of students'
conversations and then encouraging them to edit their own tapes for errors.
2.11.5 Who Should Treat Learner's Errors?
Error treatment is often regarded as the teacher's prerogative because of his /her superior
knowledge and status in the classroom. However, Allwright and Bailey (1991:107)
point out a need for teachers and researchers to ask whether treatments emanating from
the teacher are "fruitful in terms of the teacher and learners' common goal". Although
the teacher's role in helping students move along the IL continuum has been
acknowledged, Hendrickson (1978:396) cautions that teachers should not dominate
correction procedures. They should instead encourage self-correction by allowing
students’ time and opportunity for self-repairs (Allwright and Bailey 1987:64).
According to Bolitho (1995:52) self-correction would promote learner autonomy and

responsibility. Chaudron (in Seliger and Long 1983:23) points to a need to train learners
in the appropriate use of communication strategies, that is, the ability to handle
breakdowns in communication, as mastery of such strategies is likely to promote learner
confidence.
In the researcher’s view point, peer correction is also helpful in that it represents a
learning opportunity for both students: the error maker and the one offering correction.
30
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
According to Singh (2006:79), research methodology refers to the procedures by which

researchers go about their work of describing, exploring and predicting phenomena. It is
a systematic way to solve a problem. Its aim is to give the work plan of the research.
3.1. Research paradigm
According to Guba (1990:16), a research paradigm is a system of assumptions,

concepts, values and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality to draw
conclusions. This study falls under interpretivism framework for it is based on
description and interpretation of the findings. Additionally, this research responds to
both quantitative and qualitative methods, usually called mixed method.
3.2 Research Approach
The researcher decided to use quantitative and qualitative research methods for
gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a
particular phenomenon and to probing the respondents’ in-depth perception to the
research in focus, as Dawson (2002:14) explains that quantitative research generates
statistics through the use of large-scale survey research, using methods such as
questionnaires or structured interviews. Therefore, that’s what made the researcher to
choose such specific methodologies.
3.3 Research Design
Regarding the research design, this is applied research as it makes no attempt to

generate or formulate new theories; rather it seeks to solve a particular problem related
to promoting oral error correction technique in English language classes in ESAM
Secondary School. Therefore, this is a case study since it investigates error corrections
challenges in that institutions with focus on grade 10-A2.
3.4 Target population
The target population of this study consisted of three male teachers of English and 440
students of all the four streams, grade 11, in ESAM Secondary School.
31
Table 1: Teachers of English in ESAM Secondary school

Sex Total
Participants Male Female
3 0 3
Source: The researcher, 2020
Table 2: Students in ESAM Secondary School.

Streams
Sex Male female male Female male female male female
74 30 72 41 70 41 71 42
Sub total 104 113 111 113
Total 440
3.5 Sample
The sample of this study consisted of 52 students, from which forty six were male and
six female students, and 3 male teachers of grade 11. In order to ensure validity and
reliability of data, the researcher selected all students with even numbers in the register.
That is, the ratio was 1:2 which is far more representative, given that the minimum
advised in this type of studies is 1:10. However, age range and sex was not taken as
variables in the study.
Table 3: Sample
Sample Sample Gender

population Nr % Male Female
Nr % Nr %
Teachers 3 100 3 100 - -
Students 52 100 46 88.4 6 11.6
3.6 Means of data collection
Data was collected through two means, namely class observation and questionnaire.
Observation is an instrument which is widely used by researchers to gather data from
real situations. It seemed to be suitable for the current study to observe how teachers
32
actually correct students' oral errors in real classrooms. Edwards and Talbot (1999: 82)
pointed out that a good way to find out how teachers teach is by watching them at work.
Hence, observations depend on what researchers see and hear, not on what they think
about their sample. The observation illuminated what actually happened in the
classrooms and how teachers and students reacted and interacted during oral error
correction. The researcher designed an observation form to use during his class
observations (see app. I). It enabled him to verify aspects like type of errors, teacher’s
reaction, the time devoted to errors, correction technique among others. In relation to
the questionnaires, one was for students from grade 10, stream A 1 and the other for the
teachers (see app. II A and B). The reason for using these instruments (observation
forms and questionnaires) in this study is that the former, observation, allows the
researcher to observe in the first hand what is taking place in the classroom or elsewhere
and the latter saves time and it relatively easy to administer.
3.7 Procedures
The questionnaires were translated into Portuguese and distributed to the learners and
the teachers who had been selected. All of them were answered and returned on the
same day. In relation to the observation, a total of four lessons delivered by the host
teachers were observed in order to get first hand information about students’ reaction to
questions and teachers’ attitude to errors. In an attempt to ensure validity, he first
observed lessons and then administered questionnaires. Otherwise, teachers and
students would portray a behavior that the researcher would like to see, and not what
they actually are.
3.8 Data analysis techniques
The findings from both questionnaires and observation were analyzed and interpreted
statistically and presented in tables and percentages, and then matched with the
hypotheses.
3.9 Limitations of the study
Overall, the study went smoothly in all its phases. All the people involved, namely
students, teachers and directorate were very collaborative. However, like many study of
33
this kind, the researcher faced some difficulty, especially in the observation stage. After
getting permission from the school head master to carry out the research, it was very
difficult to meet the host teacher. Whenever the researcher asked him for observation,
he was faced with some kind of resistance. The host teacher claimed that English
lessons in the school timetable appeared in the last slot, and that students could hardly
attend them. As a result, he said, he could teach whenever there was a vacant slot from
other teachers. Consequently, it was only possible to observe 4 lessons out of 6
programed.
34
CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter aims at presenting, analyzing and discussing the data collected by means of
observation and questionnaire.
4.1 Data from classroom observation
Using the first instrument of data collection (app. A), the researcher observed four
lessons delivered by two teachers all in Grade 10. The purpose of the observation was to
find out how teachers dealt with students’ oral errors and mistakes in their classes. The
researcher will only describe three of these observations in order to avoid repetitiveness.
Although teachers knew different techniques and methods of correction they paid much
attention to students' oral errors and correction. These techniques are: direct correction
technique, correcting errors within a sentence as a direct correction, self-correction, peer
correction, and using recast technique, which emerged from analysis of observations.
Every teacher has his/her own different and individual ways of using particular
techniques.
Direct correction was the technique which was the most used among by both teachers in
all situations that required oral correction. The reason for this might be to save time.
This was clearly observed during different observations. Participant number A who had
more years of experience, corrected his student directly and immediately in the mixed
class. He was standing in front of the class and asked a student to continue reading. The
teacher seemed to focus on correcting the wrong pronunciation of words within clauses
or phrases during reading activities. He was observed correcting the student(s) directly
by himself without waiting for self-correction or peer correction. This classroom
observation has shed some light on the participating teacher’s oral error correction
practices during an oral activity.
During the study, it is observed that teachers did not neglect any of the errors and
treated errors immediately. However, the teachers did not employ other techniques such
as self-correction and peer correction. The former is the most effective as it gives
student the opportunity to think and rethink of the correction and also builds confidence
35
while the latter might engage the whole class in the operation of error correction and
encourage students to follow up what was going on in the class during oral activities.
4.2 Data from students’ questionnaires
As a means of data collection, the researcher administered questionnaire to 52 of which

46 boys and 6 girls. The questionnaire was translated into Portuguese in order to
facilitate comprehension. The pie below shows the figures of respondents by sex, which
is question number one.
Chart 1: Students by sex
12%
female
male
88%
With regards to question 2, “Do you commit errors when you speak in class?”, as many
as 48 participants corresponding to 92 % answered positively. That is, they do.
However, only4 respondents representing 8% said ‘no’. The outcome of this question
reveals that an overwhelming majority of the students acknowledge that they commit
errors. Therefore, it indicates that they attempt to speak regardless of their weaknesses.
Chart 2: Students committing errors
8%
yes
no
92%

36
In question 3 students were asked the frequency of correction, “How often does your
English teacher correct you when you commit error?”In response, they gave four
different opinions. As many as 28 students, equivalent to 54% said always and 15,
which corresponds to 29% said very often. At the other extreme, 7 respondents ticked a
few times and 2 said never. These figures correspond to 13% and 4%, respectively. The
data shows that the teacher usually corrects them.
Chart 3: Frequency of error correction
4%
13%
54% Never
29% few time
very often
always
Source: The researcher 2020
Concerning to question 4, “When does he/she correct you?” 47 students suggested that
the teacher corrects them immediately after the error or mistake. This number represents
90.4% of the respondents. Only as few as 5, which is 9.6%, said he or she corrects after
the activity or class.
Chart 4: when does he/she correct you
9,6%
corrects them
90,4% immediately
corrects after the
activity
The following question (5) required students to express how they corrected the error,
"How do you correct them?" Eleven students, representing 21% said that the teacher
asks them to repeat the utterance while as many as 20 students, corresponding to 39%
37
said that the teacher supplies the correct form. Finally, 21 students, representing 40%
claimed that the teacher tells them wrong right away.
This data reveals that nearly half of the respondents, 40 per cent, believe that teacher
uses this inappropriate technique, particularly in communicative language teaching
context, where the focus should be communication itself.
Chart5: Ways of error correction

45%
40%
39% 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
21%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Ask them to repeat Supply the correct form Tell them “wrong”
With regards to question 6, which aimed at identifying the aspects mostly corrected,
more than half, that is, 29 participants in the study, corresponding to 56% chose the 1 st
option, linguistic form. The other 23 respondents ticked vocabulary and other aspects
together. This result clearly illustrates that the teacher is more concerned with the use of
correct linguistic forms rather than interaction.
Chart 6: Aspect which errors are corrected
56
44% % linguistic form
vocabulary and other
aspects
Question 7, “What errors should your teacher correct immediately in class?” yielded the
following answers:
Type of errors I agree I disagree

Persistent errors, especially those shared by most students 41 11
Errors that impede comprehension 48 4
Those that show that the student has not learned yet. 47 5
38
In relation to Question 8, “Why does your teacher correct errors in class?” , the
respondents produced the answers below.
Reasons for oral error correction in class I agree I disagree

To help improve student’s accuracy of linguistic forms. 33 19
To enhance student’s effective use of English grammar. 30 22
Enable students feel comfortable when speaking English. 34 18
Finally, Question 9 required students to say how the teacher should react to them. In
response, they gave different points of view in the table below.
Teacher’s reaction I agree I disagree

Force students to think carefully about how to express the meanings 25 27
they wish to convey.
Supply alternative modes of expressions to help students find the 28 24
correct version by themselves.
Interrupt students in mid-flow to point out the error 18 34
4.3 Data from the teachers’ questionnaire
This section relates to teachers’ questionnaire. It is worth reminding that only three
teachers of English for grade 10 took part in the study. All of them were male.
With regards to question 2 which required their teaching experience, two said that they
had six year whereas the third had been working for four years all in the secondary
level. Additionally, they all had Licenciatura degree in ELT, from the former
Universidade Pedagogica, preset day UniRovuma. The answer reveals that theoretically
they are right professional.
In question 3, the researcher wanted to know if they had ever taken part in any training
or workshop on error correction. All said that they had made part in annual short
training on ELT methodology, teaching program, teaching aids, but not specifically on
error correction. In other words, they had not been to a training specifically devoted to
this subject.
In response to question 4, How do your students feel when you correct oral errors they
commit?” Surprisingly, the teachers claimed that students have a neutral reaction about
it. That is, none of them ticked the most obvious options suggested by the researchers:
happy and upset.
39
Next, in question 5, the researcher asked the teachers to rank in order how they
corrected their students’ mistakes, where one is the most and three is the least.
Two respondents chose the second option as the most used, that is, they supply the
correction right away whereas one chose the first, he asks the speaker to repeat the
utterance. However, the last option, you are wrong, ranked least for all the respondents.
It was numbered three.
When asked question 6,”When do you correct students’ errors?”, All respondents said
that they correct them immediately. They claimed that errors should be corrected
promptly for students to get the most of it. In other words, they feel that if left for other
occasion, students may switch off.
In question 7, teachers were asked this question: “In your opinion, what errors should
you correct immediately in class?”. In response, they gave the opinions in the table
below:

Persistent errors, especially those shared by most 3 0
students.
Errors that impede comprehension. 3 0
Those that show that the student has not learned yet. 3 0
However, one respondent defended that not every error or mistake should be corrected.
Unfortunately, he did not mention those that could be over looked and why.
Finally, last question required them to say how they should react to them. Again, all of
them share the same view. They agree with the first two options and all disagree with
the last as the table below illustrates.

Force students to think carefully about how to express the meanings 3 0
Supply alternative modes of expressions to help students find the 3 0
Interrupt students in mid-flow to point out the error. 0 3
4.4 Data Interpretation and Discussion
This section is devoted to data interpretation and its discussion. To put it clear, it is
where the researcher brings together all information collected from observation and
40
questionnaires and matches with theories put forward but experts in the field of error
correction or treatment.
During the study, it is observed that teachers did not neglect any of the errors and
treated errors immediately. However, the teachers did not employ other techniques such
as self-correction and peer correction and feedback.
Classroom observation data showed that, indeed, very few students attempt to speak. In
all the four lessons observed by the research, there was one way oral interaction. That is,
the teacher spoke to students and they apparently listened to him. The choice of the
word in italics is deliberate for students seemed to react or follow the lesson by instinct.
They did not speak but just followed the instructions merely because they are used to
that routine or did what they saw others doing.
For those risk takers, two or three, who desperately spoke and made mistake, the teacher
promptly supplied the correct form. He corrected every type of error, particularly
grammatical ones that related to the third person singular and verb tense. It is worth
stressing here that the teacher was unfortunate not only for supplying the right form but
also for interrupting them for accuracy.
In relation to this aspect, Kilfoil (1989:320) asserts that before teachers can think of
correction they will have to decide in advance whether they are going to demand
accuracy or fluency as the nature of the task will influence their correction style. That is,
she condemns the correction of grammatical errors while students are making oral
presentations because if learners are forced to concentrate on how they are saying
something instead of what they are saying they become inhibited. Therefore, only when
communication breaks down a teacher can ask for clarification. In the researcher’s
opinion, at that stage he should take notes and let communication flow. In this regard,
Kilfoil (ibid) asserts that“errors made during group and pair work [speaking practice] be
given on the spot treatment as the teacher moves round the class supervising the
students.” He further recommends the promotion of self-criticism. For example, after
students have presented they should be encouraged to identify mistakes that they have
made and correct them.
41
Additionally, the students’ and teachers’ responses have many aspects in common.
There are very few diverging points. However, the researcher will highlight the most
important questions and their answers.
In response to question 2 as many as 48 participants corresponding to 92 % answered

positively. The answer reveals that an overwhelming majority of the students
acknowledge that they commit errors. The good news is that all the teachers hold
university diploma in ELT. In theory, they are professionally trained to deal
successfully with errors and other ELT matter.
Another students’ response which is in accordance with teachers’ opinion is that related
to frequency of correction. In response, as many as 28 students, equivalent to 54% said
that teachers always correct them when they make mistakes in class. This answer was
corroborated by all the teachers inquired in the study. In fact, it is important to correct
mistakes made by students, however, it is imperative for language teachers to think
about when to do it. In the researcher’s opinion, before correcting them, they should
assess the type of error is. In other words, some errors special those that break down
communication need to be treated whenever they come across while grammatical ones
can be dealt with sometime later. As stated above, in our teaching context, where focus
is on communication or meaning, teachers should not over stress grammatical
structures. The priority should be what students say but not how they say something.
Furthermore, students and teachers, to some extent, seem to agree on one aspect, which
is the correction procedure mostly used by teachers. In relation to this subject, as many
as 20 students, corresponding to 39% said that the teacher supplies the correct form.
This was also suggested by two teachers. However, 21 students affirmed that the teacher
tells them that they are wrong write away. Concerning this issue, the researcher believes
that the last procedure inappropriate, particular for foreign language learners. Holley
and King (1975:178) caution against heavy-handed corrective strategies or treatments
that might frustrate or embarrass the learner.
One productive strategy would be for the teacher to develop good questioning skills and
give students reasonable "waiting time" before pointing out the error or modeling the
correct answer. Failure on the part of the teacher to give waiting time so that the error
42
makers can restructure their statements is "error creating" behaviour. Another fruitful
way of correction is put forward by Chastain cited in (Hendrickson, 1978:27). He
suggests re-wording an answer in an acceptable manner, possibly in the same fashion
that errors are treated in out-of-class situations, or summarizing and, reviewing the most
common errors at the end of the lesson.
Additionally, Fanselow (1977) defends that effective training in listening skills would
enable learners to distinguish between their own incorrect responses and their teachers'
or fellow students' corrected responses. Indeed, in our schools, this can be accomplished
via dictation tasks.
4.5 Examining Hypotheses
Like any academic research, it is a must to analyze hypotheses put forwards at the
beginning of the study, with the sole aim of proving or refuting them.
With regards to assertion one, Both teacher and students should do the correction, the
study has shown that it is partially true. Data collected from class observation and
questionnaires and subjected to analysis revealed that teachers are the only ones who do
the correction. They correct the students directly by themselves without waiting for self-
correction or peer correction.
Premise two, only those errors that hinder communication should be corrected is not
confirmed in this particular study. Teachers were observed correcting minor or local
errors which affect a particular element but the message of the speaker may be still
understood.
The third hypothesis that reads Learners’ errors should be corrected in the end of an
oral activity is largely refuted. Data from both observation and questionnaire revealed
that teachers did not postpone their error correction or feedback until the end of what a
student wanted to say in oral activities.
43
The last hypothesis Errors should be corrected mainly through self and peer correction
is also refuted. All participating teachers did neglect these two techniques, which are the
most effective for oral error correction.
44
CHAPTER V: PROPOSAL, IMPLEMENTATION, RECOMEN. AND

CONCLUSION
This chapter suggests some techniques, procedures, strategies and activities that will
successfully help teachers to deal with students’ reluctance to speak in class due to
errors. It also comprises sections devoted to implementation, recommendations and
conclusion.
5.1 Proposal
It is a fact that errors in language learning are inevitable and positive part of that process
since they are viewed as a reflection of the learners’ stage of inter-language
development. Therefore, it is crucial that teachers develop adequate strategies to treat
them. Here are some techniques or activities that can be highly fruitful. It is vital to
emphasize, however, that the techniques for oral error correction presented below are
not all applied in a single lesson; the teacher may choose to use those that he/she finds
that works in a particular class.
Consider “showing incorrectness to students” as a way of correcting learner errors. As

the name itself suggests, this technique consists of pointing out/showing that an error
has been committed. This can be done in different ways such as:
1. Repeating: it consists of asking students to repeat what they have said. The
teacher has to use a special intonation which will indicate that something is not
clear.
Let us now consider a situation where a teacher asks the students to tell the weather of
the day. A student tells the weather wrongly.
Teacher: What was the weather like yesterday?
Student 1: Today WERE sunny and windy.
Teacher: Could you say that again? This time the teacher raises intonation where the
error has occurred (were).
Student 1: yesterday WERE sunny and windy.
Teacher: Ok, sit down. Can I have another student?
Student 2: yesterday was sunny and windy.
Teacher: Ok, that’s correct sit down.
45
2. Reformulation: It is a correction technique which is used for both fluency and

accuracy work. It consists of repeating back a corrected version of what the
student has said by reformulating the sentence, that is, showing the correct
version, but without making a big issue of it.
Teacher: Many students are absent today, I can’t see Mary. Where is she?
Student 1: Mary said me, she is sick.
Teacher: Oh, Mary told you she is sick, didn’t she?
Student 1: Yes, teacher. She told me, she is sick.
Teacher: Allan, where is your partner, Júlio?
Student 2(Allan): He is outside.
Teacher: Oh, Allan is outside.
Student 2(Allan): He is outside.
3. Hinting: is a quick way of helping students to activate rules they already know
but which they have temporarily mislaid.
Teacher: Puts a picture in front of the class, and asks: where does Agnes live?
Student 1: Agnes LIVE at ESAM.
Teacher: Third person singular-present simple (live).
Student 1: Agnes lives at ESAM.
Teacher: What can you see at Agnes’s living room?
Student 2: I can see MUCH books.
Teacher: Book is a countable noun.
Student 3: I can see many books.
Teacher: What else can you see?
Student 3: I can see pictures the wall, a school bag, TV set and a freezer.
Teacher: Prepositions of place between picture and the.
Student 3: Oh, yes, in the wall.
Teacher: Something that is touching the surface of something, class how do we say, in
the wall?
Class: No, we say on the wall.
Teacher: Well done!
46
36
4. Statement and answer: is a correction technique which consists of indicating

that something hasn’t worked well. In this technique the teacher may simply say,
for example: Good try, but there is something missing.
Teacher: What are the comparative and superlative forms of the following adjectives:
important and big?
Student 1: important- more important- most important, big-bigger-biggest.
Teacher: Good try, but there is something missing. Can anyone come and spell it on the
chalkboard?
Student 1: Teacher, I will try it again: important-more important, the most important,
big-bigger-the biggest.
Teacher: Excellent.
5. Echoing: consists of repeating a certain part of the sentence that is wrong to

show incorrectness by emphasizing it, in other words, by saying it with a
questioning intonation.
Teacher: Make a sentence using the verb “take”.

Student: African Cup of Nations TAKE place every two years.
Teacher: asks by raising intonation on the verb: TAKE?
Students: Takes
Teacher: Excellent!
Failing to use the techniques presented above while correcting oral errors, teachers can
lose a good chance to find out what the student have learned and what they still need to
be taught.
5.2. Implementation
The researcher will implement this proposal in two different ways. First, he will
produce a handout on practical technique, procedures and strategies for oral correction
in English lessons, and offer a copy to ESAM Secondary School. Second, he will run a
workshop at her future work place. In this way, he hopes to reach out as many teachers
as possible and raise their awareness about it.
47
5.3 Recommendations
This section is a suggestion of practical steps that should be taken in order to equip both
teachers with adequate knowledge on error correction and treatment in English language
classes. The way teachers handle errors and provide feedback plays an important role
for the success in the learning and teaching process. So, for teachers to maintain
constant motivation after correcting oral errors they should:
 Be sensitive about the way they correct oral errors, this means that, for example,
not always reacting immediately to every error that a student commits, otherwise
this will demotivate that particular student;
 Judge just the right moment in a gentle way;
 Show incorrectness to students and invite them to correct by themselves,
however, if the students can’t do it by themselves, then the teacher can move to
other ways;
 Provide the students with basic vocabulary, especially the one used in every day
conversations so that they can be able to answer questions when asked to do so;
 Teachers should sometimes correct students’ oral errors immediately especially
those which cause lack of understanding. However, in other occasions, other
errors should be recorded so that they can be corrected at the end of that
particular lesson
 Have positive attitude towards students’ errors and failures;
 Teachers should create an environment where students feel free to say what they
think and feel;
 Pair observation between teachers should take place at least three times a
trimester.
 It is obvious that if these techniques are well applied they can yield good results
and as a corollary of that, learning will be efficient and the students are likely to
develop their communicative skills.
The recommendations are also addressed to students. They should view errors as part of
the learning process, and therefore, understand that it is impossible to learn a language
without making any mistake. They should also realize that it not the teacher who needs
to learn but the students themselves.
48
5.2 Conclusion
This study entitled A Proposal for Improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in
English language Classes aimed at examining the correlation between students’ poor
participation in oral classroom activities and the way teachers correct students’ oral
errors in ESAM Secondary School, particularly in Grade 10, Stream A-2, day shift.
More importantly, it sought effective strategies or techniques for oral error correction.
The study has shown that, in fact, students’ poor participation in oral activities derives
mostly from the ineffective oral error correction techniques employed the teachers.
Indeed, the way teachers handle errors plays an important role for the success in the
learning and teaching process. Data from classroom observation revealed that teachers
gave primacy to direct correction technique at the expense of the most effective ones.
The reason for this might be to save time. However, the paper has proposed the use of
most effective techniques, such as self-correction, peer correction and feedback. The
first, self-correction gives student opportunity to think and rethink of the correction and
builds confidence whereas the second, peer correction, makes students feel happier
asking and checking each other rather than admitting errors in front of the class. The last
technique, feedback, gives the students the chance to check their performance.
Summing up, the study reminds teachers to consider some very important issues about
understanding the significance of oral error correction in the process of English
language learning, such as: how much correction should be made, at what phases the
teacher should correct the error and how the teacher can correct the learner without de-
motivating him/her.
49
References
Allwright, M. & Bailey, C. (1987). Practical Techniques for Error Correction, Harvard
Publications, Malaysia.
Baker, J. &Westrup, H. (2000). How to Teach Large Classes with few Resources: The
English Language Teacher’s Handbook, CUP, UK
Bolitho, R (1995). Current Issues on Error Correction. Modern English Teacher.
Corder, S. P. (1973). The Significance of Learners Errors. Harmonds worth: Penguin
Education.
Doff, A. (1988). Teach English. CUP, UK.
Edge, J. (1989). Managing Oral Errors in the Classroom. Cambridge: UK.
Ellis, R. (1990). Researching Classroom Language Learning. London: Modem English
Publications.
Fanselow, I. F. (1977). The Treatment of Leaner Error in Oral Work. Foreign Language
Journal. V.10: 583-93.
George, H.V. (1972) Common Errors in Language Learning. Rowley, Newbury House
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman, UK.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Cambridge:
OUP.
Hendrickson, L. (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Modern.
Holley, F.M. and King, L. K. (1975). Imitation and Correction in Foreign.L L.
Longman, UK.
http://w.w.w.nadaisland.com (11/12/2015).
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use, Longman, UK.
Kaufmann, E. (1993)please correct me if I'm wrong , Amsterdam.
Kilfoil, W. R. (1989). Learn to Teach Pretoria: Academic.
Mattson, M.E. and Boars, B.J (1992), Error- minimizing Mechanics, UK, Oxford.
McGroarty, M. (1989). The Benefits of Error Correction in Learning Arrangements
inSecond Language Instruction.
Paulston, C. B, &Bruder, M. N (1976). Teaching English as a Second Language:
Techniques&Procedures. Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers.
Porte, G. K. (1993). Mistakes, Errors, and Blank Checks. English Teaching Forum January,
1993 42-44.
Quirk, R. (1995). Dictionary of Contemporary English. New Edition. Longman. New York.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies. London:
50
Longman.
Schachter, J. (1974) Language learning, Oxford University Press.
Vale, D and Feuteun, A. (1995) teaching children English, New York, Cambridge
University. Press.
51
APPENDIX
52
Appendix AI
Classroom Observation Form
Lesson code Scored by

Teacher observed School and level
Date/time Class
Score every 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
minutes
Student talking
Teacher talking
Silent reading
Reading aloud
Group work
Pair work
Individual work
Teacher asking
questions
Student asking
questions
explanation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Source: Micallef, R. (1998) Project Baseline Study, London.

53
Appendix AII
Brief description of classroom activity
Scan 1
Scan 2
Scan 3
Scan 4
Scan 5
Scan 6
Scan 7
Scan 8
Scan 9
Scan 10
Source: Micallef, R. (1998) Project Baseline Study, London.

54
Appendix BI
Students’ questionnaire
This questionnaire aims to investigate the strategies used by teachers to correct oral
errors. I could very much appreciate it if you could spend some time providing me with
the necessary information.
Read the questions below then tick the most appropriate box and /or answer the
questions where necessary.
1. Gender: Male Female

2. Do you commit errors when you speak in class?
Yes___ No___
3. How often does your English teacher correct you when you commit an error in the
class?
Never_____ A few times_____ Very often_____
Always_____
4. When does he correct you?
Immediately ___ at the end of the activity or class____ Other_____
5. How does he correct you?
Asks to repeat_____ Provides the correction ____ He tells you
‘wrong”____
6. Which of the following aspects does your teacher correct errors immediately
from?
______ when the focus is on form.
______ when I give an opinion on any subject.
Other (Please specify)
______________________________________________________________________
7. In your opinion, what errors should your teacher correct immediately in class?
Type of errors I agree I disagree42

Persistent errors, especially those shared by most students
Errors that impede comprehension
Those that show that the student has not learned yet.
55
Others (please specify)

______________________________________________________________________
8. In your opinion, when an error is committed how should the teacher react?

Force students to think carefully about how to express the meanings
Supply alternative modes of expressions to help students find the
Interrupt students in mid-flow to point out the error
Thank you
56
Appendix B II
Teachers’ questionnaire
This questionnaire aims to investigate the strategies used by teachers to correct oral
errors. I would appreciate it if you could spend some time providing me with the
necessary information.
Read the questions below and tick the most appropriate boxes and/or answer the
questions where necessary:
1. Gender: Male Female

2. Teaching experience: how long have you been teaching English?
1-5 years 6-10 years +11 years
3. Have you ever taken part in any training workshop for oral errors correction?
Yes No
4. How do your students feel when you correct oral errors they commit?
Happy Upset Others (Please specify)
______________________________________________________________________
________
5. How do you correct them?
Ask them to repeat____ Supply the correct form_____ Tell them “wrong”
6. How do you correct students’ errors?
I correct them:
a) As soon as they occur
b) At the end of the lesson
c) Others
(Please specify)______________________________________________________
7. In your opinion what are the benefits of oral error correction?
______________________________________________________________________
8. In your opinion, what errors should you correct immediately in class?

Persistent errors, especially those shared by most
students.
Errors that impede comprehension.
57
Those that show that the student has not learned yet.

______________________________________________________________________
9. In your opinion, when an error is committed how should you react to them?

Force students to think carefully about how to express the meanings
Supply alternative modes of expressions to help students find the
Interrupt students in mid-flow to point out the error.

______________________________________________________________________
Thank you

Guido Monography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guido Monography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guido Armando Boaventura

A Proposal to Improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in English

Guido Armando Boaventura

A Proposal to Improving Oral Error Correction Techniques in English

The Case of EASMSecondary School - Grade 10- A1, Day Shift

Monograph to be submitted to the

List of Tables and Charts................................................................................................vii

1.2 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................14

1.3 Scope of the Study.....................................................................................................14

1.5 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................14

1.8 Site of the Study........................................................................................................15

1.9 Merit of the Study......................................................................................................15

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................17

2.2 The Differences between Slips, Errors and Mistakes................................................17

2.3 Types of errors...........................................................................................................18

2.3.1 Productive errors....................................................................................................19

2.3.2 Receptive errors......................................................................................................19

2.3.3 Systematic errors....................................................................................................19

2.3.4 Local errors.............................................................................................................19

2.3.5 Global Errors..........................................................................................................19

2.4 Main Categories of Errors.........................................................................................20

2.5 Basic Principles of positive Error Correction............................................................22

2.6 Strategies for dealing with oral Errors.......................................................................22

2.6.1 Strategies for correcting Errors..............................................................................23

2.6.2 Delayed correction technique.................................................................................24

2.7 Dealing with Oral Errors in different Stages of a Lesson.........................................25

2.7.1 Correcting oral errors at the beginning of the lesson.............................................26

2.7.4 Correcting Learners’ Errors in Groups...................................................................27

2.8 Approaches to Error Correction................................................................................27

2.11.1 Should learner errors be corrected?......................................................................28

2.11.2 When should learner errors be corrected?............................................................28

2.11.3 Which errors should be corrected?.......................................................................28

2.11.4 How should Learner's errors be corrected?..........................................................29

2.11.5 Who Should Treat Learner's Errors?....................................................................29

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................30

3.1. Research paradigm...................................................................................................30

3.2 Research Approach....................................................................................................30

3.3 Research Design........................................................................................................30

3.4 Target population.......................................................................................................30

3.6 Means of data collection............................................................................................32

3.8 Data analysis techniques............................................................................................32

3.9 Limitations of the study.............................................................................................33

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS.......................................34

4.1 Data from classroom observation..............................................................................34

4.2 Data from students’ questionnaires...........................................................................35

4.3 Data from the teachers’ questionnaire.......................................................................38

4.4 Data Interpretation and Discussion...........................................................................39

4.5 Examining Hypotheses..............................................................................................42

CHAPTER V: PROPOSAL, IMPLEMENT, RECOMEN. AND CONCLUSION........44

CLT – Communicative Language Teaching

List of Tables and Charts

Appendix AI: Classroom Observation form……………………………………..…….52

Appendix AII: Brief Description of Classroom activity…………………………...…..53

Appendix B I: Students Questionnaire…………………………………………………54

Appendix B II : Teachers Questionnaire…………………………………………...…..56

February _____, 2022

Guido Armando Boaventura

I am very grateful to my supervisor ErasmoTocota, MA for his immense contribution

I am equally indebted to all my lecturers, in particularly of ELT for their constructive

Thank you all.

Key words: correction, oral, error and technique

Background to the problem

1.2 Statement of the problem