A rationale for 'correct the transcript' tasks

Introduction

'Correct the transcript' tasks (aka 'faulty transcript') are a favourite of mine and I have a collection of them on my site, for both intermediate (GCSE) and advanced level. I first came across the idea many years ago when one of the English exam boards (Oxford and Cambridge, as they were then) used the task in their listening papers.

If you need a reminder, students are given a transcript of a text to be read aloud by the teacher or played on a recording. But the version they hear has a number of linguistic differences which the students must identify and correct in their version. I like to put the emphasis on linguistic differences, but you could use factual differences. (The latter would put the emphasis on building intercultural knowledge rather than linguistic).  A good by-product for A-level learners is that the task helps them learn the skill of paraphrasing which is needed, for example, in the AQA A-level exam.

What is going in the student's head when doing this task?

When a student does a correct the transcript task, several simultaneous processes are activated:

1. Auditory Processing

The student pays close attention to the spoken language. Unlike much casual listening, this task demands careful decoding, where the brain works to identify phonemes, syllables, word boundaries, intonation patterns, and stress. Learners try to match sound input with their mental representations of words and chunks.

2. Working Memory Activation

The student holds short stretches of spoken language in working memory while scanning the written transcript. This requires short-term storage and comparison, a cognitively demanding process especially in a second language. Students are 'mentally rehearsing' chunks of language. This mental rehearsal in the phonological loop (to use the popular Baddeley terminology) (see Smith and Conti, 2021).

3. Comparative Analysis

The learner performs a real-time comparison between what they hear and what they read. This involves noticing differences in vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation — a process linked to Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990), which states that noticing is essential for language intake. To do this students require an appropriate level of prior knowledge. 

4. Error Detection and Hypothesis Testing

As learners identify mismatches, they begin hypothesis testing: Did the speaker say “a réalisé” or “va réaliser”? This encourages learners to draw on existing knowledge of grammar and lexis, reinforcing their internal language system - their procedural knowledge of grammar and lexis.

5. Form-Meaning Mapping

It is often said that learning a new language is about creating form-meaning relationships, i.e. how does form create meaning? This task is one of many which help do this. To use an English example. hearing “He left already” while the transcript says “He is leaving now” forces the student to process past versus present.

6. Metalinguistic Reflection

When students compare what they think they heard with the written text, they are forced to check, question, and revise their initial understanding. This requires self-monitoring — another key metacognitive skill. The task also makes students aware of gaps in their listening comprehension (e.g., not recognising vocabulary, tenses, gaps between words, liaisons in French). Recognising these gaps encourages self-regulated learning as they ask what they need to do to improve.

A research-informed rationale

So, in view of what is happening in a student's head, how can the task be justified from a second language acquisituion research perspective?

• Correct the transcript tasks promote listening comprehension, attention to detail, and form-focused awareness (i.e. grammatical awareness). As we saw above, you can argue that this is rooted in Noticing Theory (Schmidt, 1990). Students get to focus on the gap between the spoken input they hear and the written form in front of them, encouraging them to notice discrepancies in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. You might say more simply, that it gets them to listen intensively for detail, focusing on both form and meaning.

• If you relate this to Field's (2008) model of process listening (which was part of our inspiration for the Breaking the Sound Barrier book (Conti and Smith, 2019)), learners often treat listening as a test rather than a learning process. Correct the transcript tasks turn listening into an active, problem-solving activity, not just a test of comprehension. The latter may encourage superficial listening - listening out for key words or phrases, but failing to process, for example, function words which contribute to meaning (e.g. articles, prepositions, pronouns, auxiliary verbs). Working with the transcript therefore encourages deeper processing of language and stronger long-term memory. I like to call this intensive listening. Put differently, the task supports the development of bottom-up processing skills, such as recognising word boundaries, connected speech, and reduced forms—all of which are often missed by learners relying solely on top-down strategies (i.e. using knowledge of subject matter and general world knowledge). 

• As referred to earlier, by requiring students to identify and correct differences, the task builds phonological and phonics (sound-spelling correspondences) awareness and encourages form-meaning connections to be made.

• Teachers can identify common mishearings or grammatical and lexical misunderstandings, allowing for targeted feedback. For example, in French, it may become clear that students often fail to process gaps between words or 'silent endings' to words. They may fail to distinguisg between certain vowels, for examples nasals or the difference between 'ou' and 'u'.

• Students benefit from immediate awareness of their listening difficulties, which, as I mentioned above, increases metacognitive reflection.

Any downsides?

If you want the emphasis in your classes to be on input and communication, you might argue that tasks like this are very form-focused and lacking in communicative value. They are not what you might call fun (although they do satisfy a desire to find fault and solve a problem). So, as with other form-focused tasks like dictation, grammar drills, translation and gap-fills, the best advice may be to use them in moderation, depending on the class and the nature of the syllabus and exam you are preparing for. Try asking the students what they think of it and if it has value for them.

Building up communicative skill may not entirely be about doing communicative activities. If a task like 'correct the transcript' provides meaningful input, helps with deep processing of language and the strengthening of long-term memory, then it can be part of a diet leading to proficiency in the longer term.

Conclusion

It is easy to justify using this task. Correcting transcripts can be adapted across proficiency levels and integrated into various themes. It would usually make sense to use the task in a lesson sequence, supporting and recycling previous and future work, and only when students are ready to deal with it at their level. Like all tasks, it needs to offer success to build self-efficacy. For me, this makes the task in general more appropriate for intermediate to higher levels and for students with a good level of literacy. As we have seen, correcting a transcript demands a good deal of processing and prior knowledge.

References

Conti, G. and Smith, S.P.  (2019) Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Language Learners How to Listen. Independently published.

Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). 'The role of consciousness in second language learning.' Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

Smith, S.P. and Conti, G. (2021) Memory: What Every Language Teacher Should Know. Independently published,