Skip to main content

How useful is it to correct written errors?

I was prompted to write this blog after reading two research-based blogs about correcting students' written errors. The first, typically provocative in its title,  is one by Gianfranco Conti here. the second, in response to Gianfranco's post is here by Russell Mayne on the blog Evidence based EFL. I recommend both blogs.

The introduction of Gianfranco's blog post (one of a number he has written on error correction) puts the issue of error correction into context:

"Most secondary school MFL teachers correct their student writers’ mistakes. But does error correction ACTUALLY enhance L2-writing proficiency development? A large number of scholars who espouse Cognitive theories of L2-acquisition (e.g. McLaughlin, 1987; Johnson, 1988, 1996), the vast majority of teachers (Applebee, 1984; Zamel, 1985) and most L2-learners (Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998) think so. However, many language educators working in the Nativist paradigm oppose this view. Believing that L2-acquisition is an unconscious process, which cannot be significantly altered by grammar instruction, some of them have even called for a ban on EC from the L2-writing classroom (Krashen, 1984; Leki, 1990; Truscott, 1996). In the absence of conclusive evidence that EC does enhance L2-learner writing proficiency, the debate over whether errors should be corrected or ignored is still ongoing."

Gianfranco then lists a number of reasons why traditional error correction is ineffective and concludes by suggesting some ways to make error correction more effective:

"– Effectively focus learners on the importance of form and bring it firmly into their focal awareness;
– Enhance the ways in which the learners handle feedback and get them to process teacher corrections ‘deeply’, using approaches that are more conducive to learning;
– Increase their error related self-knowledge (i.e. the knowledge of what their most common errors are);
– Enhance their editing strategies through learner training and extensive practice;
– Personalize remedial learning and engages them in a long-term of self-monitoring process whereby they set out to eradicate the errors they know they make through independent study, extensive practice and careful editing."

In essence I think I could summarise Gianfranco's view by saying that teachers over-value error correction, could do it better and spend too long on it compared with more useful activities.


Russell Maynes's blog entitled "Try this, it works! Written error correction" takes issue with Gianfranco's position. Russell's main criticism is that Gianfranco's selection of research is a bit out of date. He goes on to quote more recent research, e.g. Ellis and Shintani, 2014, which suggests that error correction is effective, especially when it is "direct" (i.e. you correct the error and put in the right version too - as opposed to just circling or underlining the error, know as "indirect correction").
Russell reports: 'recent studies report a clear advantage for direct forms of feedback.' (Bitchener and Ferris, 2012).

Russell continues by summarising some research on the value of using codes when correcting, using "focused" or "unfocused" correction (i.e. choosing one type of error to focus on such as verb ending, or correcting all errors) and Gianfranco's point that error correction may demotivate students. In sum Russell's reading of the research takes a more positive view of error correction.

I would like to add a few points of my own, purely based on my own experience and feelings on the matter.

Firstly, I am sure that this area, like many others in second language acquisition research, is difficult to research and that studies will report conflicting findings. The field is young and only quasi-scientific. Error correction is just one intervention teachers use to further the progress of their students, so it is hard to isolate it for experimental purposes.

In addition, I would hypothesise that the effectiveness of error correction depends to some degree on the relationship the teacher has with the class. With some teachers a class may well respond to error correction more usefully than with others. Further, whatever the relationship, a teacher who insists on error correction being followed up is likely to see the correction being more productive. Following up could include focusing on problem structures in subsequent tasks or insisting that errors be written out.

Next, error correction, although it probably demotivates some students, is seen by most if not all as a sign that the teacher cares about the work the students are doing. At this point I need to return to a point I often make which is that one of the main aims of marking is to ensure that students have done their work and that you care about that fact. If you don't mark/check and correct the students may well put less time and care into their work. A key point for me is not the error correction, but the fact that the students have done the work carefully in the first place. So error correction has an important psychological element which is impossible to measure.

Theoretically, while I accept that many errors are developmental and are ironed out over time with comprehensible input à la Truscott, I have seen with my own eyes over many years how corrections improve students' subsequent accuracy. Students often do respond to correction and put things right. If we do not correct we cannot rely on input to improve accuracy (time restrictions mean there is not enough input). There is a danger that errors become "fossilised", i.e. don't go away (itself a controversial area in the research!).

In sum, my feeling is that error correction can be useful when done in the right way (e.g. following Gianfranco's suggestions above) with a particular class or individual, but that, yes, teachers probably spend too long on the task. A common approach to save time and, arguably, correct more effectively is to read students' work speedily (maybe correct lightly) and then devote some lesson time to whole class feedback and re-teaching of common problem areas. A teacher's time is limited and time spent meticulously correcting written work may be better spent preparing great lessons.


Popular posts from this blog

A zero preparation fluency game

I am grateful to Kayleigh Meyrick, a teacher in Sheffield, for this game which she described in the Languages Today magazine (January, 2018). She called it “Swap It/Add It” and it’s dead simple! I’ve added my own little twist as well as a justification for the activity.

You could use this at almost any level, even advanced level where the language could get a good deal more sophisticated.

Put students into small groups or pairs. If in groups you can have them stand in circles to add a sense of occasion. One student utters a sentence, e.g. “J’aime jouer au foot avec mes copains parce que c’est amusant.” (You could provide the starter sentence or let groups make up their own.) The next student (or partner) has to change one element in the sentence, and so on, until you restart with a different sentence. You could give a time limit of, say, 2 minutes. The sentence could easily relate to the topic you are working on. At advanced level a suitable sentence starter might be:

“Selon un article q…

Google Translate beaters

Google Translate is a really useful tool, but some teachers say that they have stopped setting written work to be done at home because students are cheating by using it. On a number of occasions I have seen teachers asking what tasks can be set which make the use of Google Translate hard or impossible. Having given this some thought I have come up with one possible Google Translate-beating task type. It's a two way gapped translation exercise where students have to complete gaps in two parallel texts, one in French, one in English. There are no complete sentences which can be copied and pasted into Google.

This is what one looks like. Remember to hand out both texts at the same time.


_____. My name is David. _ __ 15 years old and I live in Ripon, a _____ ____ in the north of _______, near York. I have two _______ and one brother. My brother __ ______ David and my _______ are called Erika and Claire. We live in a _____ house in the centre of ____. In ___ house _____ …

Preparing for GCSE speaking: building a repertoire

As your Y11 classes start their final year of GCSE, one potential danger of moving from Controlled Assessment to terminal assessment of speaking is to believe that in this new regime there will be little place for the rote learning or memorisation of language. While it is true that the amount of learning by heart is likely to go down and that greater use of unrehearsed (spontaneous) should be encouraged, there are undoubtedly some good techniques to help your pupils perform well on the day.

I clearly recall, when I marked speaking tests for AQA 15-20 years ago, that schools whose candidates performed the best were often those who had prepared their students with ready-made short paragraphs of language. Candidates who didn't sound particularly like "natural linguists" (e.g. displaying poor accents) nevertheless got high marks. As far as an examiner is concerned is doesn't matter if every single candidate says that last weekend they went to the cinema, saw a James Bond…

Worried about the new GCSEs?

Twitter and MFL Facebook groups are replete with posts expressing concerns about the new GCSEs and, in particular, the difficulty of the exam, grades and tiers. I can only comment from a distance since I am no longer in the classroom, but I have been through a number of sea changes in assessment over the years so may have something useful to say.

Firstly, as far as general difficulty of papers is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that the new assessment is harder (not necessarily in terms of grades though). This is particularly evident in the writing tasks and speaking test. Although it will still be possible to work in some memorised material in these parts of the exam, there is no doubt that weaker candidates will have more problems coping with the greater requirement for unrehearsed language. Past experience working with average to very able students tells me some, even those with reasonable attainment, will flounder on the written questions in the heat of the moment. Others will…

Dissecting a lesson: using a set of PowerPoint slides

I was prompted to write this just having produced for three separate PowerPoint presentations using the same set of 20 pictures (sports). A very good way for you to save time is to reuse the same resource in a number of different ways.

I chose 20 clear, simple, clear and copyright-free images from to produce three presentations on present tense (beginners), near future (post beginner) and perfect tense (post-beginner/low intermediate). Here is one of them:

Below is how I would have taught using this presentation - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, especially of you are not big on choral repetition and PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production), but I'll justify my choice in the plan at each stage. For some readers this will be standard practice.

1. Explain in English that you are going to teach the class how to talk about and understand people talking about sport. By the end of the lesson they will be able to say and understand 20 different sport…