Error Correction Techniques in University-Level English Language Teaching: A Review of Strategies and Pedagogical Implications
Keywords:
Error correction, feedback strategies, English Language Teaching (ELT), learner accuracy, fluency, pedagogical implicationsAbstract
This review discusses error correction techniques in English Language Teaching (ELT), focusing on their effectiveness, implementation, and pedagogical implications. Drawing on both theoretical frameworks and empirical studies, the review explores various strategies such as direct and indirect correction, oral and written feedback, self- and peer-correction, and immediate versus delayed feedback. Evidence suggests that while error correction improves learner accuracy, its effectiveness depends on contextual factors including learner proficiency, task type, and the classroom environment. The review highlights best practices for educators to balance accuracy and fluency, tailoring feedback to learners’ needs. Finally, implications for university-level ELT and future research directions are discussed.
References
Aljohani, M. (2020). Teacher cognition and practice regarding oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 612–625.
Alqahtani, A. (2022). The impact of corrective feedback on reducing language anxiety among university students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 45–59.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3), 301–319.
Hussein, H. (2014). The effect of teacher error-correction, guided error-correction, and self-error-correction on EFL learners’ improvement in accuracy of writing. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(2), 42–54.
Indrawati, I. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students. SFL Education, 4(3), 112–125.
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.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–231.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language proficiency on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.
Truscott, J. (1999). What's wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437–456.
Zheng, C. (2016). Learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback: A review of recent studies. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 33–41.
