Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Correction
Khaing Mu Mu Zin, Steve McKee, Ph D
Shinawatra University, Thailand
Khinezin99@gmail.com, mckeesteve@hotmail.com
Abstract
Error correction is vital for oral communication skill improvement. However, the preferences
between the teachers and adult learners on oral error correction are different and this affects the learners
ability to improve their oral communication. The purpose of this study was to investigate preferences of
Myanmar teachers and adult learners on the following aspects: 1) the necessity of oral error correction on
oral skill improvement, 2) the frequency of error correction, 3) the appropriate time of correction, 4) the
types of error that need to be treated and 5) the delivering agent of error correction. This study was based
on quantitative method. The subjects were eighty-three adult learners who were studying at two private
language schools and twelve Myanmar teachers who taught English language skills in Yangon, Myanmar.
The instruments for data collection included a questionnaire for teachers and adult learners preferences.
The data was quantitatively analyzed. The results revealed both the teachers and students certainly agreed
that students errors should be corrected. Besides, the vast majority of the teachers believed that the most
effective corrective feedback was repetition while learners preferred explicit corrective feedback.
Keywords: Oral Error Correction, Myanmar EFL Teachers and Adult Learners Preferences, Corrective
Feedback
Introduction
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my genuine gratitude to my advisor Dr. Steve McKee
for his precious guidance and sincere supports. Next, I would like to express my
great appreciation to Dr.Amporn Sa-ngiamvibool and assistant professor Catherine
Ownes for being my committee members. Additionally, I am really thankful to all of
the participants in my research, my family and friends who encouraged me for my
thesis.
Research Questions
This study addressed the following
research questions
(1) What are the teachers preferences on oral
error correction, particularly regarding the
necessary of error correction, the frequency of
error correction, the appropriate time of error
correction, the types of error that need to be
treated, and the delivering agent of error
correction?
(2) What are the adult ESL learners preferences
on oral error correction, regarding the
necessary of error correction, the frequency of
error correction, the appropriate time of
correction, the types of error that need to be
treated and the delivering agent of error
correction?
Literature Review
There have been numerous definitions
of error in language learning process.
According to Cambridge Online Dictionary of
British English explained the definition of error:
a mistake (Cambridge Dictionary Online). On
the other hand, mistake is defined in detail: an
action, decision or judgment which produces an
unwanted or unintentional result (Cambridge
Dictionary Online). In the Oxford Dictionary,
error is exactly defined as a mistake whereas
mistake is significantly explained as an act or
judgment that is misguided or wrong (Oxford
Online Dictionary).
Errors have been categorized in
numerous ways. Mackey et al. (2000) divided
four types of errors that the teachers uses of
corrective
(feedback
were
phonology,
morphosyntax,lexis and semantics. Furthermore,
Park (2010) categorized five errors types. These
are serious spoken error, less serious spoken
error; frequent spoken error, infrequent spoken
Participants
The participants in this study were
eighty three students learning at two private
languages schools in Yangon, Myanmar and 12
teachers from Dagon University and two private
language schools (NELC and Nilar) in Yangon,
Myanmar. The beginner level adult learners
were chosen from two private language schools
(NELC and Nilar) for the quantitative part of
this research. Thirty three males and fifty female
students completed the questionnaires. Among
these learners, 45 students were undergraduates,
29 were graduated and 9 were post-graduated.
The age of students were arranged in groups as
follows: 16-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30 and above.
Instruments
The instruments in this study used were
questionnaires. The questions were adapted from
Parks research (2010) which investigates
teachers and learners preferences on spoken
error correction. These questionnaires contained
both questions with five point Likert scale and
answers alternatives in English. Two types of
questionnaires were applied in this study: one
was for teachers and the other was for students.
Each questionnaire had two sections. The
questions in the first section asked about the
teachers and the learners perspectives of the
necessary of error correction and the frequency
of spoken error correction, their preferences for
timing of error correction, the types of error that
need to be corrected, preferable corrective
feedback type and delivering agents of oral error
correction. The second part of the questionnaire
was simply designed to collect participants
demographic information. Questionnaires were
administered to twelve teachers and eighty three
students. Before completing the questionnaires,
all the questions in these questionnaires were
fully explained in Myanmar language in advance
in order to avoid misunderstanding and
confusion in answering questionnaires. It is no
66.6
41.6
Neutral
2.4
25
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
S A/
A
D
/SD
As soon as
errors are
made
63.8
21.7
14.5
16.6
83.3
After I
finish
speaking
82.2
12
41.6
8.3
50
After
activities
55.4
23.3
19.3
91.7
8.3
At the end
of class
34.8
31.3
33.9
33.3
50
16.6
Frequent
12
Infrequent
7.2
Individual
Serious
Less serious
Frequent
50
50
50
41.6 58.3
16.6
66.7 16.6
Infrequent
33.3
0
Individual
Teachers responses
Error types
N
8.3
41.6
58.3 33
Clarification
54.5
37
Request
58.3
33.3
Repetition
68.6
19.3
12
91.6
8.3
42.7
30.1
19.2
25
Implicit
10.6
8.3
83.3
16.6
0
Explicit
Elicitation
75.9
25
62.6
16.9
75
19.2
7.2
0
18.1
33.3
50
No corrective S
26.5
Type
Metalinguistic S
T
Recast
19.3
54.2
58.3
41.6
63.8
19.3
16.9
66.6
33.3
50.6
16.6
33.3
13.3
8.3
36.1
25
SA/A
DA/SDA
Classmates S
77.1
18.1
4.8
58.3
2.4
24.9
Teachers
S 100
T 100
Students
Themselves T
71.1
13.3
14.4
75
25