【Teaching Practice Report】

The Formulation of a Classroom Observation Instrument for
Recording Purpose of Recording Error Correction in EFL Classes
Jason Murray
Abstract
The paper investigates error correction in English as a Foreign Language Discussion classes and methods
employed by teachers when addressing errors. The paper will begin with discussing general attitudes andperceptions toward error correction. The body of the paper primarily focuses on formulating an observation
instrument (OI), which is able to effectively record error corrections. From the results, the OI will be evaluated andmodified at three stages of the formulation. It is hoped that the formulations and analysis will improve the OI in
areas such as ways in which teachers navigate error correction through the stages of the lesson, ways in which theerrors are corrected, and the effectiveness (i.e., is the error likely to be repeated again?) of the correction. The
paper will conclude with an overall reflection of the investigation and will assess the effectiveness of the OI as a tool
for trainee teacher development purposes, with a focus on measuring error correction.
Keywords: error correction, English as a Foreign Language, teacher development, observation instrument

Introduction
One of the most important aspects in English as a Foreign Language class is error correction. It
is also considered invaluable for motivating students and assisting with learning. However, error
correction poses teachers obstacles when addressing errors. For instance, not all students like to becorrected, yet want to improve their accuracy and fluency. If the chosen correction is not given
correctly, it could potentially affect students’ confidence and inhibit fluency. The teacher also has toconsider how much error correction is adequate. Insufficient correction might leave students feelingdissatisfied, and potentially, the students will continue to make the same mistakes. In Hendrickson’s
1978 review of feedback, he asks a series of questions for the teacher to consider:
Should learners’ errors be corrected?
When should learners’ errors be corrected?
Which errors should be corrected?
How should errors be corrected?
Who should correct learner errors?
However, there have been many disputes among linguists over these questions. Lyster andRanta (1997) and Ellis (2001) provide us with examples of the various types of feedback. For example,
implicit, recast, clarification request, metalinguistic clues, elicitation, and repetition. From the various
types of feedback, past surveys have indicated that recast is the most common, though its
effectiveness is disputed. Recasts deploy repetition as correction. Mackay and Philip (1998) argue
that repetition is mechanical and question whether the student is simply repeating without learning.
Hornby and Sally (2009) provide a thought-provoking example by definition when separating thewords. For example, Error is a formal way of saying mistake, and Correction is a change from62

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

something more accurate than it was before. With the aforementioned linguist’s comments
considered, we can say that the error is a violation to the set of rules, and as the linguists/teachers
write the EFL textbooks and set language rules for teaching and learning, it is the teacher’s role toaddress the errors. Furthermore, if students are being tested and evaluated on the set of rules fromthe textbooks, that alone justifies the importance of error correction. The aims of the investigation isfor teacher development purposes and to elucidate the practice of error correction in EFL classes. In
addition, it is hoped that the OI will facilitate in answering the research questions for this paper.

Research Questions
Which stage in the lesson did the error happen?
What was the language error?
Who corrected the error?
How was the error corrected?
How effective was the correction?
Obser vations: The class observations were conducted at Rikkyo University in Tokyo. The English
Discussion program promotes the Communicative Approach methodology and follows a unified
curriculum (Brereton, 2019). All the teachers tailor their lessons to ensure that the students have ahigh degree of student speaking time (SST) and for the classes to be as student-centered as possible.
On average, there are 10 students in each class. The English Discussion program is credit-based andis mandatory for all freshmen students. The class levels range from Level 1, the highest, to Level 4,
the lowest. Prior to the observations, the teachers were not given explicit details of the research as
not to influence their actions and impact the OI. The objectives for each lesson is for the Discussion
Skills (function language) and Communication Skills (comprehending, clarifying, and paraphrasing
language) to be incorporated in the discussions. An important consideration when planningobservations was to observe a variety of lessons and levels, which would enrich the gathered data asa result.

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design One
Design One was organized to be as broad as possible; 4 columns were used. The first column
was the stage to record when the error took place. The second column focused on the language
errors. It was important to find out any patterns of errors, which would make the investigation morecomprehensive for the observer. The third column could identify the teacher’s correction strategy.
The effectiveness of the feedback given to students could also be noted. Furthermore, it would makeinteresting reading for the observer to see the various correction techniques. In the fourth column,
a Correction: Teacher/Student was included in order to be able to record the number of corrections
made by the either the teacher or the student.
Classes Obser ved: Three Discussion Classes - Level 2 (x1), Level 3 (x1) and Level 4 (x1).

63

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument - Error Correction
Level

Stage of Lesson

Class time

NumberStudentsofLanguage Error

Stage Key
F= 3-2-1 Fluency
P2= Practice 2
D1=Discussion 1
D2= Discussion 2

Correction Strategy

64

Design One

Correction:
Teacher/Student

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design One
Various data were recorded from the three observations. On reflection, it was challenging andtime-consuming writing the relevant information in the appropriate columns. The student’s utteranceswere also recorded. However, it was difficult to accurately record the teacher’s correction strategy.
Throughout the lesson, error corrections were missed due to constantly writing down data. Anotherarea of the OI that was over-looked was class notes, which would be beneficial when evaluating the
OI. After the first two observations, strategies were developed where specific references could be
used for the teacher’s feedback as opposed to writing in dialogue form. The reduced time spent
writing made it possible to assemble information much more accurately and comprehensively than
before. Recording information in the stage column was quite straightforward, and as expected,
corrections were always given after activities. The Correction: Teacher/Student column was proving
to be inconclusive. The lower-level classes were mainly teacher-centered as opposed to studentcentered. From the first two observations, 99% of the corrections were by the teacher. As a result, theCorrection: Teacher/Student column needed to be redesigned.
Classes Obser ved: Three Discussion Classes - Level 2 (x1), Level 3 (x1) and Level 4 (x1).

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design Two
From the evaluation of Design One, significant changes needed to be made in order to measurequantitative data smoothly. After consideration, the stage box was not amended, as most of the classlevels were low Pre-Intermediate (Level 3) to Elementary (Level 4). The low-level classes were very
structured, and as a result, data could be measured accurately and without any restrictions.
Furthermore, as there is a lot corrective feedback variation from class to class, analyzing and notingthat many teachers felt comfortable when using a particular correction method significantly
influenced the recorded data on the OI. The correction strategy column was a concern and needed tobe refined, so noting all the different types of corrective feedback were made. The inclusion of a key
would reduce writing (i.e., recording letters as opposed to words), which would save considerable
time. The correction strategy key was implemented as follows (with meanings): EC= Explicit
Correction. The teacher makes it clear to the student that their utterance was incorrect and directly
corrects. R= Recast. The teacher informs the error implicitly and provides the correction.
CR=Clarification Requests. The teacher may indicate an error by asking the student to repeat the
information, pretending not to have understood the information. MC= Metalinguistic Clues. The
teacher does not directly give the correction but will ask a question directly referring to the incorrectutterance. E= Elicitation. The teacher will elicit the mistake by asking questions. Repeating thestudent’s utterance until the mistake. The teacher’s pause will indicate the error and allow thestudent to reformulate the utterance. There are similarities between metalinguistic clues andelicitation. The difference being that elicitation correction requires the student to repeat theirutterance. A metalinguistic clue requires only a yes/no response. A slight change was made to thecorrection column. The amendment enables the student’s response to the feedback and corrected/
uncorrected errors to be recorded.

65

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument-Error Correction

Level

Class
time

Numberofstudents

Stage

Stage Key

Design Two

Correction Strategy Key

F = 3-2-1 Fluency
P2 = Practice 2
D1= Discussion 1
D2 = Discussion 2

EC = Explicit Correction
R = Recast
CR = Clarification Requests
MC = Metalinguistic Clues
E = Elicitation

Correction Strategy

66

CorrectionKey

C = Corrected
U = Uncorrected

Correction

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design Two
Recording the errors were considerably easier for Design Two, and the amount of time writing
while observing lessons significantly reduced. As mentioned from the Design One evaluation, thestage column contributed to inconclusive results, as there were no clear-cut stages during the firsttwo observed lessons. The stage column worked effectively when the observed lessons werestructured. The low levels were much more structured, and a range of errors at various stages of thelesson could be recorded. The high levels tended to be more of a mixed bag or content-based
instruction, and there was not any variation between discussing the homework at the beginning of
the class to the wrap-up activity at the end of the class. While observing, all the abbreviated stages
had been included on Design Two without difficulty. Recording language errors significantly
improved. The errors could be noted with more accuracy than before due to the correction strategy
column. After each lesson, analyzing the errors and highlighting the types of errors in red pen were
made. Errors in areas such as pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary were accounted. Modifying
the language error column in order to reduce writing time and to monitor the types of errors wasconsidered. The size of the language error box needed improving, as there was insufficient space torecord dialogue between student and teacher accurately. The inclusion of the correction strategy
column made very interesting reading. Recordings of the correction strategies from each teacher
and the effectiveness of a particular strategy provided interesting analysis. For example, the mostcommon strategies used and the ones which were the most effective were clearly visible on the OI.
It was also interesting to note the variation of strategies used by teachers. For instance, in the firstobservation, 12 corrections were recorded and the recast strategy was used 9 times. In the second
observation, 10 errors were recorded and the elicitation strategy was used 6 times. It was clear thatsome teachers felt comfortable employing a particular correction strategy as opposed to using avariation of correction strategies. The correction column allowed recordings of the number ofcorrected and uncorrected errors. From the findings, comparing effective and ineffective correction
strategies was possible. Overall, the correction column was very successful and the results were very
useful, though the correction column could still be improved, which would make gathered data from
Design Three much more conclusive.
Classes Obser ved: Four Discussion Classes - Level 3 (x2) and Level 4 (x2).

Obser vation Instrument Plan for Design ThreeFor Design Three, sufficient writing space in the language error box was a consideration. It is
intended to include dialogue between student and teacher, which would help measure successful andunsuccessful error corrections. The correction method box and the stage box would remain the same.
The correction method box proved to be very successful in Design Two and saved crucial timemeasuring the information accurately. The stage box had been successful in structured lessons forlow levels. The majority of lessons observed have been structured low-level classes. For language
error, a tick system is included. The tick system would assist identifying the types of errors at speed.
Furthermore, being able to analyze the most frequent errors with clarity and the effectiveness of thecorrection would be advantageous. The correction box needed modifying in order to obtain more
conclusive data. An uptake key box was included. The uptake would focus on the student’s response
immediately after being corrected and the student’s actions from the teacher’s corrective feedback.
67

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

Observation Instrument-Error Correction
Level

Class
�me

Number of
students

Stage Key

Uptake Key

F= 3-2-1 Fluency

TR=Teacher
Repaired
SR=Student
Repaired
U= Unrepaired

P2= Practice 2
D1= Discussion 1

Correc�on Method Key
EC= Explicit Correction
R= Recast
CR= Clariﬁcation Requests
MC= Metalinguistic Clues
E= Elicitation

Stage

D2= Discussion 2
Language Error Key
G= Grammar
V=Vocabulary

Stage

DIALOGUEStage

DIALOGUE

DIALOGUE

DIALOGUE

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeStage

P= Pronunciation
M=Miscommunication

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeStage

Design ThreeStage

DIALOGUE

Language
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptakeLanguage
Error
Correc�on
MethodUptake68

DIALOGUE

THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSESThe key would focus on the following three areas: The teacher repaired error correction (TR), a
student repaired error correction (SR), and unrepaired student error (U). In order to record the datasmoothly, accurately, and to be able to identify each error easily, the layout design needed to beamended. Using five boxes, the design would be much more compact. Four of the boxes, Stage,
Language error, Correction method, and Uptake, simply required a tick. The enlarged dialogue box
would allow writing the dialogue between the teacher and the student. Counting corrections
identified from previous observations, the average number of recorded errors were between 10/12.
OI Design Three can record six error corrections; therefore, at least two OI (12 errors) would be
required per lesson.

Evaluation of Obser vation Instrument Design Three
The findings from Design 3 were very conclusive, and the OI could be used more effectively
than that for the previous designs. The dialogue box proved invaluable, as it was possible to virtually
record the exact dialogue between the teacher and the student, and as a result, it helped assess theuptake accurately. As the key was abbreviated, the abbreviations could be easily memorized, so
recordings could be done without the need to refer to the key. Other notable data from the OI
indicated that effective correction would generally occur when the teacher asked questions directly
to the student. Elicitation was by far the most effective method of correction. The least effective
corrections occurred when the teacher gave feedback after speaking activities. For example, whenincorrect utterances were written by the teacher on the whiteboard. The students could identify theerrors in written form and in groups or individually, generally repairing the error that can be harmfulwhen learning a language. Although the uptake of these errors was SR (student repaired), it is more
likely that the student will repeat the error in the future. Furthermore, almost all recast and explicit
corrections were unrepaired. Overall, the Design 3 OI could function as intended. However, if I wereto make a further amendments, then recording data at various stages of the lesson would be aconsideration. For instance, omitting the Warm-up stage of the lesson as it generally provided
inconsequential data. On reflection, the uptake area of the OI has made me more aware as to how andwhen to give feedback. Although I am an experienced teacher, I now consider my own corrective
strategies when teaching with much more cognizance.

Conclusions and Implications
From this investigation, approaches and methods used in lessons varied considerably, which
greatly affected the OI. For instance, the OI was more effective when observing structured lessons,such as when employing presentation, plan, and production and test, teach, and test methodologies.
However, the OI was least effective during a content-based lesson. As a result, data were insufficient,and many areas on the OI were largely redundant. In addition, the data indicated that the number of
errors corrected contrasted considerably from teacher to teacher. That statistic could imply either
that some teachers are less concerned about correcting errors or that some teachers have received
comprehensive training and some teachers have not had adequate training. For further research inerror correction, the OI tool, after redesigning, could be used to pursue further investigations. For
instance, measuring the success/failure of the teacher’s error correction techniques and a morein-depth account of the methods of correction. The OI recorded five methods of correction. From theobservations, notes were also taken on teachers’ behavior. For example, some teachers were very
69

多言語教育実践ジャーナル

第3巻 （ JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL PEDAGOGY AND PR ACTICE, VOL. 3）

theatrical when addressing an error. For example, using over-the-top intonation as a way to draw thestudents’ attention to the error. The correction was applied by finger correction, head shaking, or
gesticulating. The errors were generally repaired. On reflection, the teacher’s strategies were very
effective, as errors were dealt with in a light-hearted manner. Overall, much insight on corrective
feedback techniques and the transformed OI served as a useful tool during the research. It is hopedthat the developed OI could assist a trainee EFL teacher for teacher development purposes tobecome more competent when giving effective error correction. As a result, the teacher would feel
more accomplished with gaining an overall understanding into error techniques, which would
generate more awareness and a good attitude toward learners’ error correction. The investigationfrom this paper indicated that the students’ need for error correction is essential for learning.
However, the argument remains that there is not one universal rule for all teachers to follow, thoughshowing understanding and sensitivity toward students’ feelings is recommended.

70THE FORMULATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR RECORDING PURPOSE
OF RECORDING ERROR CORRECTION IN EFL CLASSES

References
Brereton, P. (2019). Teacher perceptions of a working within a strongly unified curriculum, New
Directions in Teaching and Learning English Discussion, 7, 257-271
Ellis, R. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons, 51, 281-318.
Hendrickson, J. (1978). Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hornby, A. S., & Sally, W. (2009). Oxford’s Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. Oxford, England, Oxford
University Press.
Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L. (1997). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Mackay, A. , & Philip, J. (1998). The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

71