Structural Error Corrections in an English Conversation Class
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33633/es.v8i01.12316Keywords:
corrective feedback, English as a foreign language, explicit correction, implicit correction, structural errorsAbstract
This study explored the correction of structural errors in a beginner-level English conversation class at a private language school in Indonesia. Building on the premise that both positive and negative evidence (corrective feedback) are essential for second language acquisition, the research investigated whether all structural errors were corrected, the source of the corrections, the timing, and the strategies employed. The study observed six EFL students during an online class, focusing on their use of past tense expressions. Data were collected through classroom observations and video recordings and analyzed using deductive content analysis. The results indicate that not all structural errors were corrected; the teacher and students themselves were the primary agents of correction, with peer correction notably absent. Most corrections occurred during controlled practice activities, aligning with the class's accuracy-focused goals. Immediate correction was the predominant timing strategy, and explicit correction methods, such as metalinguistic comments and elicitation, were favored over more implicit approaches like recasting. The findings suggest the need for greater consistency in corrective feedback and highlight the potential benefits of incorporating peer correction and explicit corrective feedback in beginner-level speaking classes. However, the study's limitations include its focus on structural errors without considering student uptake of corrections or the reasons behind the teacher's selective correction approach. Further research could explore these aspects to provide a more comprehensive understanding of corrective feedback in language learning contexts.References
Amador, Y. A. (2008). Learner attitudes toward error correction in a beginners English class. Revista Comunicación, 17(1), 18-28.
Amara, N. (2015). Errors correction in foreign language teaching. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5(3), 58-68.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458.
Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Oxon: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060141
Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008), The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492
Fan, N. (2019). An Investigation of Oral Corrective Feedback in an ESL Listening and Speaking Class. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 197-203.
Gamlo, N. H. (2019). EFL Learners‟ Preferences of Corrective Feedback in Speaking Activities. World, 9(2), 28-37.
Gumbaridze, J. (2013). Error correction in EFL speaking classrooms. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1660-1663.
Li, S., Zhu, Y. and Ellis, R. (2016), The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276-295. doi:10.1111/modl.12315
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2024). Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners’ beliefs and experiences. Language Teaching Research, 28(3), 1033-1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211024365
Nurjanah, L., Rahmaningtyas, H., & Yaniafari, R. P. (2024). Examining students’ oral corrective feedback preferences for improving speaking proficiency. CELTIC: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics, 11(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v11i1.29020
Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL, 10(2), 113-133.
Öztürk, G. (2016). An investigation on the use of oral corrective feedback in Turkish Efl classrooms. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 22-37.
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.
Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688-705.
Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). COLT, communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
Vercellotti, M. L., & McCormick, D. E. (2018). Self-correction profiles of L2 English learners: A longitudinal multiple-case study. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 22(3).
Yang, J. (2016). Learners' oral corrective feedback preferences in relation to their cultural background, proficiency level and types of error. System, 61, 75-86.

















