CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLinguistics and Language AnalysisSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Error Correction: Students’ Versus Teachers’ Perceptions

Lasagabaster, David, Sierra, Juan Manuel·2005·Language Awareness
DOI 10.1080/09658410508668828
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Few issues in second language teaching have generated as much controversy as that of error correction. In fact, one of the most discouraging experiences of L2 teachers is correcting errors especially those that recur in their students’ production. A possible explanation may be the mismatch between what teachers and students consider to be effective feedback on error correction. Although much has been published on error taxonomies, detection, analysis and evaluation, there is a dearth of research studies comparing teachers’ and students’ perceptions. This article endeavours to help fill this void. The study involved 21 informants. Eleven of them were undergraduate students who had no teaching experience or qualifications, whereas the other 10 were qualified teachers of English as a foreign language with between three and 13 years’ experience. After watching an excerpt from a commercially produced teaching video twice, the participants were asked to detect the error-correction moves made by the teacher, classify them, judge their efficiency and record their opinions individually and in groups. The results indicated that a significant percentage of the teacher’s error-correction moves went unnoticed. Teachers and students agreed that the most efficient corrections occurred when more time, longer explanations, and use of different correction strategies were utilised.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658410508668828

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive beliefs may incline learners to be more receptive to interaction in the classroom, thereby increasing its benefits.

    “Such positive beliefs may incline learners to be more receptive to interaction in the classroom, thereby increasing its benefits (see also Lasagabaster & Sierra 2005;Brown 2009).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Lasagabaster & Sierra 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M.
Affiliations
University of the Basque Country (ES)
ORCID
Venue
Language Awareness
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-05-15
Volume
14
Issue
2-3
Pages
112-127
ISSN
  • 0965-8416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-7565
DOI
10.1080/09658410508668828
OpenAlex
W2065159502
Cited by
92
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Awareness (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
error correction, teacher-student perceptions, correction strategies, English as a foreign language, teacher noticing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review