However, this raises a question, as many of the previous studies indicated that correction was disadvantageous; Truscott and Magilow (1999) both stated that error correction harmed, rather than helped students in their learning. Truscott, in his original paper, dedicated an entire section to the harm error correction caused. He was particularly vocal that it caused stress and anxiety, and demotivated students. He found that corrected students (in writing) wrote no better than uncorrected students. Instead, those corrected wrote shorter sentences and simplified them so as to avoid correction.
Botha quoted both Rivers (1983) and Holley and King (1969), two sources that both seemed to be in agreement that correction harmed students. Rivers stated …show more content…
These factors range from social and motivational, to attitudinal, and essentially anything that isn 't cognitive (ie. intelligence, age, prior learning et cetera). Affective factors influence people in different ways, and it 's been hypothesised by several people that it is this aspect that determines the effectiveness of error correction.
Dekeyser (1993) found that students who scored very high or very low on certain variables, such as previous achievement, extrinsic motivation, and anxiety, did better on exams and tests after being corrected. At the very least, the previous achievement affect is corroborated by Sheen (2010), who found that students who scored above 50% on pretest scores did better when corrected with both prompting and recasting.
It 's been noted in these studies that only a small sample size was used, and may not be entirely representative; however, it provides both a good starting point and a good direction to move in. Several studies, including Dekeyser (1993) and Incecay and Dollar (2011), found that the students ' own beliefs and behaviour towards language learning were the most indicative of successful error correction. (successful as defined by markedly improving the proficiency of the student in the aspects tested). Particularly with Dekeyser 's study, he posits that error correction does not make a significant difference when applied to a classroom, however it can with individual
Botha quoted both Rivers (1983) and Holley and King (1969), two sources that both seemed to be in agreement that correction harmed students. Rivers stated …show more content…
These factors range from social and motivational, to attitudinal, and essentially anything that isn 't cognitive (ie. intelligence, age, prior learning et cetera). Affective factors influence people in different ways, and it 's been hypothesised by several people that it is this aspect that determines the effectiveness of error correction.
Dekeyser (1993) found that students who scored very high or very low on certain variables, such as previous achievement, extrinsic motivation, and anxiety, did better on exams and tests after being corrected. At the very least, the previous achievement affect is corroborated by Sheen (2010), who found that students who scored above 50% on pretest scores did better when corrected with both prompting and recasting.
It 's been noted in these studies that only a small sample size was used, and may not be entirely representative; however, it provides both a good starting point and a good direction to move in. Several studies, including Dekeyser (1993) and Incecay and Dollar (2011), found that the students ' own beliefs and behaviour towards language learning were the most indicative of successful error correction. (successful as defined by markedly improving the proficiency of the student in the aspects tested). Particularly with Dekeyser 's study, he posits that error correction does not make a significant difference when applied to a classroom, however it can with individual