A Study On The Preference Of Different Groups Of Senior High School Students For Oral Error-Correction In English Class

Oral English correction has been attracting linguists and teachers in that it’s unavoidable for learners to make errors in the process of learning a language, then how to correct errors will directly influence the effect of learning. In accordance with the student-centered conception, teachers should take students’ needs and preferences into consideration when correcting errors. However, most of the researches concerning students’preferences for oral error-correction tend to treat students as a whole, they pay little attention to the differences between groups. Similar research has scarcely probed into the preferences of students of different groups for oral error-correction.Against such a research background, this study was designed to investigate the preference differences between groups of senior high school (SHS) students, such as groups of different gender (DG) and groups with different language level (DLL), for oral error-correction in English class. The ultimate goal of this study was to help the teachers to adjust their behaviors of error-correction from the perspective of students’preferences, then improve the effects of error-correction. This study seeks to answer the following research questions:(1) What are the preferences of high-level (HL) and low-level (LL) students for oral error-correction? What are the differences between them and why? (2) What are the preferences of male and female students for oral error-correction? What are the differences between them and why?Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed in this study. The quantitative research was a questionnaire adapted from Wang’s (2012) questionnaire on the basis of Hendrickson’s (1978) five framing questions. The questionnaires were distributed to 179 SHS students, while 163 valid questionnaires were gathered eventually. The qualitative research was a semi-structured interview with 8 students who were extracted from those participating in the previous questionnaire survey by stratified and random sampling.The data collection and analysis generated the following results:Firstly, in terms of the necessity of error-correction, both HL and LL students are in favor of oral error-correction; as for the type of error-correction, they both hold that all errors should be corrected. However, there is a significant preference difference between them in expression errors. HL students have a stronger desire to have their expression errors corrected for they make less errors in terms of language form and pursue higher level of oral expression; with regard to the conductor of error-correction, both HL and LL students prefer their errors to be corrected by teacher or by virtue of reference book or coursebook, while they neither agree nor disagree that their errors should be corrected by partner, group member or anyone in the class. Besides, there are significant preference differences between them in self-correction and anyone correction. HL students strongly disagree that their errors should be corrected by anyone in the class for their psychological defense mechanism and independence of learning, whereas due to a relative good command of knowledge they prefer self-correction; with reference to the timing of error-correction, both HL and LL students prefer delayed correction, on the contrary, they disapprove of immediate correction and take a neutral attitude towards postponed correction; in terms of the method of error-correction, both HL and LL students have a positive attitude towards explicit correction, recast, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition. However, there are significant preference differences between them in clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback and explicit correction. As a result of their differences on the willingness and competence of independent learning, HL students prefer clarification request and meta-linguistic feedback, while LL students prefer explicit correction.Secondly, in terms of the necessity of error-correction, both male and female students are in favor of oral error-correction; as for the type of error-correction, both male and female students hold that all errors should be corrected; with regard to the conductor of error-correction, both male and female students prefer their errors to be corrected by teacher or by virtue of reference book or coursebook, while they neither agree nor disagree that their errors should be corrected by themselves, partner, group member or anyone in the class; with reference to the timing of error-correction, both male and female students prefer delayed correction, whereas they disapprove of immediate correction and take a neutral attitude towards postponed correction. Besides, there is a significant preference difference between them in immediate correction. Female students strongly disagree with immediate correction in that they have higher self-esteem and stronger sensitivity about their reputation; in terms of the method of error-correction, both male and female students have a positive attitude towards explicit correction, recast, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback, elicitation and repetition. In addition, there are significant preference differences between them in recast and explicit correction. Female students prefer recast for it can protect them from losing face and confidence, by contrast, male students prefer explicit correction since it can tell them the correct answers directly and immediately.The major findings generated from this study may have some pedagogical implications: From the teachers’ perspective, firstly they should take the preference differences between groups of students into consideration, then adjust their error-correction strategies in the process of error-correction. Secondly, in terms of the conductor of error-correction, they should encourage and offer HL students chances to correct errors by themselves. Thirdly, with regard to the timing of error-correction, they should employ delayed correction as far as possible for it can not only protect students’ self-esteem but also guarantee the effect of error-correction, while avoid using immediate correction. Fourthly, with reference to the method of error-correction, they should consider the affective factors and language level of students. To be more specific, for HL students, teachers can employ clarification request and meta-linguistic feedback to make them realize and correct errors by themselves. By contrast, for LL students, teachers can employ explicit correction to make them notice the gap between their inter-language and the target language. For male students, teachers can employ explicit correction to offer them prompt and direct correction. On the contrary, for female students, teachers can employ recast to protect their self-esteem. From the students’ perspective, in terms of the type of error-correction, most students pay more attention to their grammatical and lexical errors, while neglect phonetic, expression and discourse errors. However, to develop comprehensive language ability, both language meaning and language form should be attached importance to.