View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Feedback in Distance Learning Programmes in Languages: Attitudes to Linguistic Faults and Implications for the Learning Process

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Feedback in Distance Learning Programmes in Languages: Attitudes to Linguistic Faults and Implications for the Learning Process
Language: English
Authors: Ros i Sole, Cristina, Truman, Mike
Source: Distance Education. Nov 2005 26(3):299-323.
Availability: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2005
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Teaching Methods, Tutors, Open Universities, Feedback, Distance Education, Teacher Attitudes, Beliefs, Second Languages, Spanish, Teacher Student Relationship
ISSN: 0158-7919
Abstract: In distance learning provision in languages, fault correction and feedback can facilitate teacher?student dialogue. This article examines teachers' beliefs and assumptions about faults and the attitudes of both teachers and learners towards the correction process, all of which can play a key role in fostering this dialogue. Our findings are based on two surveys, one of 215 students enrolled on an intermediate Open University Spanish course and one of a sample of 18 tutors who teach on this course. The results of the two questionnaires suggest that the strategies currently in use for identifying and correcting faults may not be explicit enough. We conclude that this problem may be addressed if both tutors and students are given the tools to make the process more transparent and are encouraged to see dialogue as an essential component in the feedback mechanism.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 42
Entry Date: 2005
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=W6377K382X66N506
Accession Number: EJ720948
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGDPWh-K6zu4g0OS0q_w9-RAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO1RTf5EcTaWVKj6JQIBEICBmf0xHnZM8tK1HEyfQgZAl56sv8Ri_0pyctTcP1vngvASx8f4-WIcDq5nhLc_gxo_3TQ1B03Z2gpZGcLiJ3vJ9QtjmQsgo2Xw9POQQnepd18-UQqdLaB0t5cyLYWdFHXZnSAP_DAGDffDFwoDAiD6TOD_jN84EcRu_AMh-UE6xt9GeE0VL9ekpcrDAJCtav-ziCipbxKg0bUYsQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0018622219;5f001dec.05;2019Feb12.16:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0018622219-1">Feedback in Distance Learning Programmes in Languages: Attitudes to linguistic faults and implications for the learning process. </title> <sbt id="AN0018622219-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>In distance learning provision in languages, fault correction and feedback can facilitate teacher–student dialogue. This article examines teachers' beliefs and assumptions about faults and the attitudes of both teachers and learners towards the correction process, all of which can play a key role in fostering this dialogue. Our findings are based on two surveys, one of 215 students enrolled on an intermediate Open University Spanish course and one of a sample of 18 tutors who teach on this course. The results of the two questionnaires suggest that the strategies currently in use for identifying and correcting faults may not be explicit enough. We conclude that this problem may be addressed if both tutors and students are given the tools to make the process more transparent and are encouraged to see dialogue as an essential component in the feedback mechanism.</p> <p>Many language teachers see fault[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] correction as one of their main roles (Nunan, 1991, cited in Bartram & Walton, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref2">3</reflink>]), but what do they consider to be faults and how do they believe they should be corrected? Over the past few decades, research into different approaches to correction has been steadily increasing (Bartram & Walton, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]; Clapham & Corson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]; Gannon, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]; Kroll, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]), although there is still little consensus about this, or about teachers' and learners' "attitudes" towards fault correction, an issue that is especially significant in distance learning (DL) programmes in languages. To some extent, assessment in DL is changing as ever greater use is made of email, telephone, and online conferencing. Tutors can now give students feedback more quickly and easily, but it is by no means clear how such enhanced tutor–student communication will affect correction.</p> <p>We shall begin this paper by reviewing the relevant literature, which in this case spans developments in a number of fields, notably error analysis and correction, response studies, and learner strategies. Recent research has begun to re‐examine language learning and fault correction as a sociocultural phenomenon. From this perspective it is considered that knowledge is not imparted directly by teachers to students or assimilated by individuals on their own, but is part of an interactive, socially constructed process (Leki, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]; Murphy, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]). It is therefore important not only to make a careful study of tutors' corrections and commentaries, but also of students' "responses"—the way they view their faults, how they understand tutors' corrections and commentaries, and how they act upon them. Learners are seen as active constructors of meaning who contribute to the knowledge‐construction process as they interact with their teacher (Brooks & Brooks, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]; Jonassen, Mayes, & McAleese, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>]). In DL programmes in languages, there may only be limited scope for conventional student–teacher interaction. However, feedback and the parties involved in it (students and teachers) can all make a significant contribution towards creating an interactive learning process. For example, Leki ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]) emphasises the need to consider the ongoing dialogue between student and teacher, and Anson ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]) makes a plea for research into the textual factors that affect teachers' responses to faults (e.g., how many to identify, what comments should be made on them, etc.) as well as contextual factors (e.g., the inherited practices of teachers, local conditions, or the expectations of particular institutions) suggesting that both are areas ripe for further investigation. Equally important are students' perceptions of the fault correction process, as well as the need for both learners and teachers to reassess the contributions they make to it (Murphy, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]). Much of this research has concentrated on student–teacher interaction in conventional face‐to‐face tuition, not only between students and teachers who share English as their first language, but also in the context of teaching English to speakers of other languages. In this study we consider how teachers' and learners' attitudes influence the feedback given, how it is interpreted, and what might be done to promote student–teacher dialogue in DL programmes in modern languages. Before describing the study in detail, we must first consider the theoretical background, starting with teachers' and students' perceptions of their respective roles and needs.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-3">Theoretical Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0018622219-4">Teachers' Perceptions of the Fault Correction Process</hd> <p>Let us first consider the teacher's part in the process. There is a wide range of views about faults and the correction of students' work among teachers. For instance, in their investigation into responses to student writing, Wall and Hull ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>]) found that different groups of teachers did not necessarily share common assumptions about what should be labelled a fault. Correction strategies can vary considerably, too, according to teachers' perceptions. An ever‐present danger is the "appropriation" of learners' writing, when teachers adopt inappropriate levels of response and over‐concentrate on fault correction, thereby encouraging students to see their writing as a series of parts (words, sentences, and paragraphs) rather than a whole discourse (Sommers, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]; Zamel, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]). Differing beliefs about the nature of language learning and teaching (Eskey, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]) and teaching styles or methods (Powell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]) have also influenced teachers' attitudes towards correction and feedback. As Fathman and Whalley ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]) point out, the key questions—<emph>when</emph> to give feedback (i.e., during the writing process or after?), <emph>how</emph> to do so (i.e., whether to comment on formal features, such as punctuation and spelling, on content, or how many faults to correct), and <emph>where</emph> to do so (i.e., in the margins or on the script?)—remain unanswered.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-5">Students' Perceptions of the Fault Correction Process</hd> <p>Just as teachers' perceptions of fault correction and feedback vary considerably, so do those of their students. Ferris, Pezone, Tade and Tinti ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]) remind us that response to student writing, just like any other form of human communication and interaction, will vary according to the personalities and abilities of the participants. They also point to its crucial role in facilitating learning:</p> <p>Providing written feedback on student papers is ... arguably the teacher's most crucial task: it allows for a level of individualized attention and one‐to‐one communication that is rarely possible in the day‐to‐day operations of a class, and it plays an important role in motivating and encouraging students. (Ferris et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>], p. 155)</p> <p>If this is true for the English as a Second Language students who were the subject of this study, then it is even more so for those on DL programmes in languages, in which feedback can often be the sole form of communication between teacher and learner. Implicit in this is teacher–student dialogue (Phelps, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]), as well as a change in the relationship between the two, since meaningful dialogue presupposes the transfer of power to the student (Probst, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]). From these perspectives, then, correction and response become much more student‐centred and focus not just on the final product (the assignment the student actually submits), but— much more importantly, perhaps—on the process that leads up to it (the preliminary drafts of the work) (Phelps, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]; Probst, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]; Straub, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]). Significantly, all of these studies have been concerned with students writing in their first language, but to what extent do these observations hold true for students writing in their second language? The first potential problem is that learners may misunderstand the feedback, either because of deficiencies in their "linguistic, rhetorical and cultural knowledge" or a lack of awareness of its intent and forms (Ferris et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>], pp. 156–157). Second, there is the issue of student expectations. Many learners see the correction of linguistic faults as one of the teacher's main functions, and believe that they are unlikely to make progress if he or she concentrates on the broad picture (i.e., the drafting process) and all that it entails at the expense of commenting on "surface errors" (Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]; Saito, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]). Some researchers have gone so far as to argue that fault correction is ineffective, discouraging experimentation and, by implication, learning (Truscott, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref31">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, with the exception of Hyland, none of these researchers has examined distance learners, whose expectations and attitudes are not necessarily the same as those of their counterparts in the classroom. In a study that examined feedback in DL, Hyland ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]) detected interesting variations in students' attitudes towards the different approaches to correction adopted by their teachers. She found that some learners lacked confidence in their ability to self‐correct, some felt that it was the teacher's responsibility to correct language errors, and some preferred to have faults highlighted because this approach would force them to make more active use of the feedback and extend their independent language learning activities. Three factors are clear from this body of research. The first is that among students there is a wide range of perceptions of how teachers should correct their writing, and how students themselves should respond to these corrections. The second is that fault correction can have a significant formative function by encouraging students to reflect on their learning, identify their weaknesses, and take steps to overcome them. The final factor is that correction does not take place in a vacuum: When teachers correct students' work they seek to provoke some sort of response, regardless of whether their annotations take the form of a question, the answer to which is the key to the corrective action they want students to take (e.g., "What is the subject of this verb?"), or simply alert learners to faults, leaving them to do the rest. In this respect, correction can be seen as a form of dialogue between teacher and learner (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Nassaji & Swain, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-6">The Distance Learning Context</hd> <p>Let us now consider some of the factors that may have a bearing upon the correction of student writing in DL contexts. As White ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>]) observes, in distance education the roles of both learners and teachers are fundamentally changed. The teacher is not present to provide feedback straightaway when students encounter difficulties, nor is feedback available from other learners. There are, therefore, significant differences in how learning is organised in the classroom and in DL. Classroom learners benefit from more exposure to the language and to correction. They have more chances to seek explanations, help, and interact, all of which, in turn, enable them to assess their performance in the language they are learning through group work and by responding to teachers' questions (White, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]). In subsequent studies, however, White points out that distance learners are able to turn these apparently adverse aspects of their learning environment to their advantage by making greater use of metacognitive strategies (self‐management, advance organisation and revision) (White, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref38">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another significant factor is that in DL assessment performs an important teaching function. Most fault correction inevitably takes place when students' assignments are assessed by their tutor, even in programmes where students attend tutorials or summer schools. The formative aspect of assessment is particularly crucial in DL, given its potential for fostering reflection and learner autonomy (Hyland, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). Indeed, marking can facilitate learning by stimulating tutor–student dialogue (Jarvis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]). As Powell ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>], pp. 147–150) points out, "The capacity to identify and self‐correct at least some of their faults is one of the key metacognitive skills that students must develop in distance learning." Such feedback, however, needs to engage both the tutor and the student in the learning process.</p> <p>Self‐correction can be encouraged by tutors. Indeed, in DL it might be more appropriate to focus not so much on the amount of knowledge transferred from the teacher to the learner, but on the cognitive and autonomous learning that feedback might foster. For example, the use of a marking code by a tutor might well encourage students to identify and self‐correct faults, making them more independent as learners (Ros i Solé & Truman, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref42">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-7">Faults and their Relationship with the Learning Process</hd> <p>Teachers' approaches to correction are influenced by a variety of factors. When a piece of work is corrected, there are two possible approaches. The first, which could be described as "top‐down" or "holistic", involves comparing the student's work as a whole with a set of external standards or benchmarks (Grabe & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]; Hamp‐Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref44">15</reflink>]). The main disadvantage of this approach is that it can be extremely subjective and therefore unreliable (Hamp‐Lyons, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>], p. 79), especially when the benchmarks are not clearly defined (for instance, when they refer to a "good" or "adequate" piece of work without further explanations or examples). The holistic approach can be contrasted with the more analytical procedures (Hamp‐Lyons, 1990) adopted by some teachers. Here, the teacher considers faults first separately, and then collectively in order to form an overall judgement on the merits of the work in its entirety.</p> <p>Changing views on the nature of faults and how they should be treated have also had an impact on teachers' views and practices. In the eyes of many teachers and learners, faults are simply deviations from accepted norms set out in prescriptive grammars or from the language native speakers might be expected to produce. However, these "authorities" do not always agree on what is acceptable or unacceptable (Chastain, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]), nor do they always take full account of variations in usage in the different geographical areas where the language is spoken. From a pedagogical perspective, the main problem with this view of faults is that it is more concerned with the outcome of the learning process than with the process itself.</p> <p>Researchers into second‐language acquisition have instead concentrated on the significance of faults in the learning process and on the value of corrections made by teachers. From the 1950s onwards, attitudes towards faults and their correction were conditioned by behaviourism, and in particular the belief that the cause of second‐language learners' faults was first‐language interference (Landriault, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref47">23</reflink>]). Controlled practice was seen as one of the most effective ways of training learners to eliminate faults. Instead of being considered as a natural phenomenon in the learning process, the occurrence of faults indicated that learning had been incomplete or unsuccessful. By the early 1970s, however, language teaching methodology was beginning to be influenced by cognitive theories of language acquisition (Crystal, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref48">8</reflink>]). As part of the learning process students were believed to develop an interlanguage, an internalised, individual version of the language they were learning (Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]). With this came changes in attitudes towards faults. They were no longer seen in an entirely negative light; on the contrary, they were seen as positive evidence of learners' attempts to develop their interlanguage and understand the system behind the second language (Crystal, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>], p. 372).</p> <p>In this latter period, assessment ceased to be viewed exclusively as an instrument for measuring student performance; at the same time, awareness that it could be a means of facilitating learning was gradually increasing. On a more general level, collaborative and constructivist theories, in which learning is considered to take place mainly through interaction with others as well as through the integration of new knowledge into a framework already developed by the learner, were gaining ground (Thorpe, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref51">35</reflink>]). From this perspective, faults are seen as having the potential to help students construct meaning and help the teacher facilitate effective learning.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-8">Linguistic Faults and the Distance Learner</hd> <p>We have seen that faults can reveal the stage reached by the learner in the language acquisition process, but in DL they also have the potential to influence the nature of the interaction that takes place between tutor and student. For instance, is it essential for all faults to be corrected by the tutor, or can the student be safely left to deal with some of them? If students themselves correct certain faults, what effect will this have on the way the tutor intervenes? Must all teacher interventions have knowledge transfer as their main focus, or can they encourage "learning by doing" and provide opportunities for tutor–learner dialogue?</p> <p>Corder ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]) was one of the first to produce a practical definition of two distinct types of fault ("errors" and "mistakes") and discuss the implications of this distinction:</p> <p>... We must therefore make a distinction between those errors that are the product of such chance circumstances and those which reveal his [sic: the learner's] underlying knowledge of the language to date, or, as we may call it his [sic] transitional competence. The errors of performance will characteristically be unsystematic and the errors of competence, systematic. ... It will be useful therefore ... to refer to errors of performance as mistakes, reserving the term error to refer to the systematic errors of the learner from which we are able to reconstruct his [sic] knowledge of the language to date, i.e., his [sic] transitional competence. (pp. 166–167)</p> <p>James ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>]) elaborates on this and identifies four types of faults: "slips", "mistakes", "errors", and "solecisms". He also questions students' ability to correct certain faults by themselves if they are not first alerted to them. The four types of faults are therefore categorised not according to how "serious" they may be, but by the sort of action the student needs to take in order to rectify them. Thus, learners themselves can quickly detect and correct slips, but they can only correct mistakes if they are pointed out to them and can only rectify errors when they have undertaken further learning.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]</p> <p>This approach to fault classification has two important implications for DL. First, it places a much greater emphasis on the student's role in the fault correction process. The student no longer acts simply as the receiver of knowledge transferred to him or her by the teacher; instead, he or she has the potential to become an "active constructor of learning" and contribute to the knowledge‐construction process (see Introduction). Second, it could stimulate learner–teacher dialogue. By encouraging learners to develop a sense of ownership over the actions they take in response to fault correction, teachers can foster the development of metacognitive skills that can, in turn, help students to become more proficient at identifying and self‐correcting linguistic faults in their written work. What is uncertain, however, is whether teachers in DL see fault correction in terms of its ability to stimulate learner–tutor dialogue and develop students' self‐correction capabilities. Our study therefore focuses on the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What do DL students perceive as the functions of feedback and correction?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. How do DL teachers approach the fault correction process; more specifically, do they adopt an analytical or a holistic approach?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. To what extent do they believe that students can identify and self‐correct faults?</item> </ulist> <p>The answers to these questions are of vital importance. By understanding how the players in the knowledge construction process see their respective roles and the constraints currently placed upon them, we will be in a better position to help them and to design assessments that foster "active feedback".</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-9">Description of the Study, Results, and Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0018622219-10">The Context of this Study</hd> <p>This study is based on surveys of tutors and students on <emph>En rumbo</emph> (L140), a first‐level Spanish course offered by the Open University in the United Kingdom (OU). The course is aimed at lower‐level to intermediate‐level students of Spanish, and involves some 300 h of study spread over a 33‐week academic year. The range of student backgrounds is wide: Some students have a good working knowledge of the language—gained, perhaps, during a period of residence in a Spanish‐speaking country—but have no formal qualification in it. Other students may have studied Spanish some time ago and wish to refresh their knowledge and skills, or may have attended adult education classes and have decided to pursue their studies at a higher level. Students submit four tutor‐marked assignments (TMAs) during the course. The TMAs assess not only <emph>linguistic accuracy</emph> and <emph>range</emph>, but also <emph>content</emph>, <emph>structure</emph>, and <emph>personal input</emph> (Hunt, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]). Two of the TMAs require students to produce an oral output (such as a short talk); for the remainder they are asked to produce a written output (e.g., a letter). The overall mark achieved in the TMAs accounts for 50% of the final mark, with the end‐of‐course assessment providing the other 50%. In this study we analyse tutors' observations on their approaches to marking written TMAs, and students' reactions to the corrections they made.</p> <p>Tutors teaching on OU courses come from very different backgrounds and generally work part‐time or full‐time in other institutions. The OU organises training programmes for them that invariably include techniques for giving feedback to distance learners. On average, some 30–40 associate lecturers or tutors are responsible for the correction of language students' assignments on a given course, and each of them is responsible for teaching a group of around 20 students. Rather more than one‐half of the tutors on the course were native speakers of Spanish. Tutors are expected to give students comprehensive feedback on each TMA, including annotations on the scripts, written commentaries, and—in the case of TMAs with a spoken output—a taped commentary. There is a formative and a summative element in the assessment (Hunt, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]). Each assignment tests the language taught in a specific unit of a course. In the instructions, students are advised about the specific points assessed in the TMA, and are encouraged to check them before and after completing it.</p> <p>The documentation provided for tutors includes the generic assessment criteria that apply to all the languages offered at a particular level and some additional Tutor Marking Notes specific to each course. These include the lists of points included in the instructions, along with guidance on how tutors should interpret and apply the generic information. Most of this information is also given to students, although the specific notes for each assignment are less detailed.</p> <p>As we have already seen in the "Teachers' Perceptions of the Fault Correction Process" section, within any group of teachers one can usually expect to find a variety of views on and approaches to fault correction. This is just as likely to be true for OU tutors as it is for any other sorts of language teachers, but in DL it is essential to minimise such variables. DL programmes may have large numbers of staff and students separated by huge distances, but coordinators must ensure that tutors adopt a common approach to assessment. To a limited extent, this problem can be solved by practical measures such as the provision of the documentation and training already described. Also, as might be expected, such difficulties tend to diminish as courses mature and tutors gain experience. However, we are convinced that there is a real need to examine the problem more systematically. To do so, we must analyse how tutors correct students' work and their perceptions of the nature of the faults they encounter, so we shall now briefly describe the surveys on which this study is based.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-11">Data Collection</hd> <p>The data used in this study were obtained from two surveys. The first, conducted by the OU's Institute of Educational Technology, was sent to the 800 students enrolled on <emph>En rumbo</emph> in the 1999–2000 academic year; 215 of whom returned questionnaires. The survey itself covered many aspects of the course, but only three of the questions (Questions 7, 8, and 9) were relevant to this article. They are reproduced in Table 1. Some caution must be exercised in interpreting the responses to the questions, given that hardly any of the students who failed to complete the course returned the questionnaire, and that some of them may have abandoned the course because they felt dissatisfied with the methods of assessment or the feedback they received.</p> <p>Table 1. Responses to the student survey</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><bold>Question 7. <sup>a</sup>How well do you think the assessment strategy enabled you to demonstrate your knowledge or skills acquired from the course materials and tuition?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>1, <italic>Not at all</italic></td><td>1.4</td><td>3, <italic>Fairly</italic></td><td>59.9</td></tr><tr><td>2, <italic>Not very</italic></td><td>12.7</td><td>4, <italic>Very</italic></td><td>25.9</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Question 8. <sup>a</sup>How useful did you find the preparatory (non‐assessed) questions in the TMAs?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>1, <italic>Not at all</italic></td><td>3.1</td><td>3, <italic>Fairly</italic></td><td>51.0</td></tr><tr><td>2, <italic>Not very</italic></td><td>14.9</td><td>4, <italic>Very</italic></td><td>30.9</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Question 9. <sup>b</sup>When script marking your TMAs, what kind of feedback did your tutor give you?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Indicated mistakes ...</td><td /><td /><td>88.3</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected mistakes ...</td><td /><td /><td>83.7</td></tr><tr><td>Indicated/corrected some mistakes without penalising ...</td><td /><td /><td>30.7</td></tr><tr><td>Used a marking code (e.g., VT—wrong verb tense, etc.) ...</td><td /><td /><td>44.7</td></tr><tr><td>Provided complimentary comments on the good points ...</td><td /><td /><td>94.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Notes</italic>: <sup>a</sup>Figures indicate percentages of the total number of responses to each question. <sup>b</sup>Figures indicate the percentage of affirmative responses to each option in the list.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The second source of data (see Appendix) was a questionnaire designed by the authors and sent to 25 tutors responsible for delivering this programme in nine different regions (Yorkshire, North‐West England, North of England and Europe, Ireland, Northern Ireland, South‐East England, East Anglia, Scotland, and South‐West England). Questionnaires were returned by 18 tutors. In view of the small numbers involved, it cannot be assumed that if this survey were repeated with a larger sample of tutors drawn from a range of courses over a number of years the results would be identical. Nevertheless, despite its limitations, this survey reveals something about the perceptions of tutors on one course at a particular moment in time. The questions were concerned exclusively with tutors' attitudes and beliefs with regard to linguistic faults and their correction: Issues such as how to give feedback on the content or the coherence of the arguments in students' work were judged to be too broad and complex for examination in a study such as this. Tutors' responses are summarised in Tables 2–7.</p> <p>Table 2. Personal characteristics of tutor group sampled</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Characteristic</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Previous experience of teaching on L140</td><td>18</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Little or no previous experience of teaching on L140</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td>5</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td>13</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Age group</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 20–29 years</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td> 30–39 years</td><td>5</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td> 40–49 years</td><td>3</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td> 50–59 years</td><td>8</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td> 60–69 years</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Native/non‐native speakers</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Non‐native speakers</td><td>2</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td> Near‐native speaker</td><td>6</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td> Native speaker</td><td>10</td><td>56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. Tutors' general approaches to correction</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Action</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Before the correction process</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Reading Tutor Marking Notes and listing the assessable points in the assignment</td><td>18</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>During the correction process</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Writing comments in margins or at the foot of the page of the student's script</td><td>12</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td> Using a system of symbols ("marking code") to indicate faults to students</td><td>12</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td> (Re)‐reading Tutor Marking Notes</td><td>16</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>After the correction process</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Analysing faults, assessing their relative importance and writing comments on them</td><td>14</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td> Checking Tutor Marking Notes and general assessment criteria to assess the student's performance before giving him/her a mark</td><td>11</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td> Pointing out the most common faults and explaining how to remedy them (i.e., grammar rules, idioms, etc.)</td><td>14</td><td>78</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Tutors' views on the nature of faults: Definition of "fault" and why they occur</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Definition of "fault"<sup>a</sup></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> A fault is an instance of language that does not sound right to a native speaker</td><td>4</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td> A fault is an instance of language that deviates from the norms of that language as set out in grammars, etc.</td><td>7</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td> A fault is an instance of language that the learner is in the process of learning but he or she has not yet acquired</td><td>8</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Tutors' views on the nature of faults</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Minor; lapse of pen</td><td>8</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td> Student has failed to assimilate structures already taught in course or structures taught in course book unit on which the assignment is based</td><td>13</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td> Student is learning new rules and trying them out</td><td>10</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td> Incomplete/incorrect learning/assimilation of rules or structures by student prior to embarking on course</td><td>13</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td>2</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: <sup>a</sup>19 responses recorded overall (i.e., one respondent selected two of the options).</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. How do tutors respond to faults?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Response</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>All faults committed by students identified</td><td>12 (18)</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>All faults committed by students corrected</td><td>7 (19)</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Only those faults related to students' assumed knowledge corrected</td><td>6 (19)</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Only the faults that the tutor regards as serious or that occur frequently are corrected</td><td>8 (19)</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>Only faults related to material already covered in course or assessed in this assignment are corrected</td><td>3 (19)</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor comments on all faults</td><td>3 (18)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor comments only on faults related to students' assumed knowledge</td><td>3 (18)</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor comments only on faults relating to points already covered in course or assessed in the assignment</td><td>4 (18)</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor comments only on faults he or she regards as serious, or that occur frequently</td><td>8 (18)</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor comments on no faults</td><td>0 (18)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Figures in parentheses represent the overall number of responses recorded in each group of statements in Questions 11(a), 11(b), and 11(c) (18, 19 and 18, respectively) in which each statement in the left‐hand column of this table appears.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 6. What correction strategies do tutors adopt?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Strategy</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tutor should leave students to detect and correct minor faults</td><td>13 (23)</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor should point out faults in structures already covered in the course book or included in assessable points for assignment, but should leave students to self‐correct them</td><td>7 (16)</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor should intervene and give students guidance when they try out new language or recently learned rules</td><td>11 (16)</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor should intervene and give students guidance when they commit faults related to language covered in the course book or the assessable points in the assignment</td><td>9 (16)</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>Tutor should intervene and give students guidance when they commit faults related to rules they have failed to learn or have learned badly prior to embarking on the course</td><td>10 (18)</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Notes</italic>: Figures in parentheses represent the overall number of responses recorded for this category of fault (categories are as defined in Question 10) in respect of all the strategies given in Question 12. Overall numbers of responses recorded for fault categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 23, 16, 16, 18, and 3, respectively.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 7. How do tutors penalise faults?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Penalty</td></tr><tr><td /><td>None</td><td>Slight</td><td>Severe</td></tr><tr><td>Type of fault</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td><td>Respondents</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Minor</td><td>11 (19)</td><td>58</td><td>7 (19)</td><td>37</td><td>1 (19)</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Defective or incomplete learning of language or rules covered in course book or included in assessable points for assignment</td><td>0 (17)</td><td>0</td><td>3 (17)</td><td>18</td><td>14 (17)</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Difficulties when trying out new rules or language</td><td>4 (17)</td><td>24</td><td>12 (17)</td><td>71</td><td>1 (17)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Defective or incomplete learning of language or rules that student should have assimilated prior to embarking on course</td><td>0 (13)</td><td>0</td><td>6 (13)</td><td>46</td><td>7 (13)</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>3 (4)</td><td>75</td><td>1 (4)</td><td>25</td><td>0 (4)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Notes</italic>: Figures in parentheses represent the overall number of responses recorded in respect of the three types of penalty listed in Question 13.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0018622219-12">The Student Survey</hd> <p>The responses to the three questions relevant to our study are presented in Table 1. The vast majority of students (over 80%) thought the assessment strategy enabled them to demonstrate the knowledge and skills they had acquired "fairly well" or "very well", and a similar percentage found the questions in the preparatory (non‐assessed) questions in the TMAs "fairly useful" or "very useful". In terms of feedback, only 31% felt that their tutor indicated or corrected faults without penalising them, so we can deduce that the overwhelming majority (69%) believed that tutors did exact some sort of penalty for each fault that they identified. It is instructive to compare these responses with tutors' perceptions. Over one‐half of the respondents in the tutor survey, which is discussed in the following section, claimed that they preferred to leave students to detect and correct minor faults (see Table 6 above), with a slightly higher percentage declaring that they would not penalise minor faults (see later Table 7). Students saw things rather differently: 88% felt that their tutors indicated faults, and nearly 84% thought tutors corrected them (see Table 1). There is a clear mismatch here. Students are apparently convinced that tutors identify, correct, and penalise faults to a much greater extent than tutors themselves are prepared to acknowledge. This reveals, perhaps, two different perceptions of correction: For students, correction is primarily summative in its purpose, whereas tutors attach greater importance to its formative function. The differences run deeper than this, however, and suggest that students see it largely as the transfer of knowledge from teacher to learner; tutors, on the other hand, seem much more disposed to make it a more interactive process by giving learners some responsibility for detecting and correcting faults.</p> <p>We included a question about marking codes because they are often used by tutors to identify faults, yet leave the student to take the most appropriate form of follow‐up action (e.g., checking a rule in a grammar, or redoing activities in the course materials). Only 45% of students thought their tutor used some sort of marking code (see Table 1). This is in sharp contrast to the perceptions of tutors, two‐thirds of whom claimed that they did use a marking code (see Table 3) and confirms the mismatch in perceptions: Students view correction as a process in which they have little or no part to play, whereas tutors expect them to assume a more active role in it. However, we must reiterate our comments about treating the results of the student survey with some caution, given that only some 25% of those who could have responded did so.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-13">The Tutor Survey</hd> <p>Table 2 profiles the 18 tutors who returned the questionnaire.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>] As can be seen from this table, all the respondents were experienced L140 tutors and nearly three‐quarters of them were female. Rather more than one‐half of the tutors described themselves as native speakers, and most of the tutors undertook full‐time or part‐time work in institutions other than the OU, the bulk of them in further or higher education. The significance of such variables is difficult to gauge, but it is reasonable to assume that their experience of assessment outside the OU had some influence on their attitudes. The majority of the tutors fell into two age bands. Rather more than one‐quarter of the respondents (five in all) were aged 30–39, and eight (44%) were aged 50–59. These personal profiles were used to cross‐check the data obtained from the sample as a whole and to identify any variations related to the respondents' age, gender or native/non‐native speaker status. Differences in response rates in excess of 40 percentage points were considered significant and are discussed in the following, as appropriate.</p> <p>Most of the questions in our survey were intended to investigate tutors' attitudes towards correction. The issue that concerned us here was whether they saw their approach to correction as primarily <emph>analytical</emph> or <emph>holistic</emph> (see the section "Faults and their Relationship with the Learning Process"), bearing in mind that the OU assessment criteria, the Tutor Marking Notes and the training provided all steer tutors towards the former rather than the latter. Table 3 summarises the actions tutors claim they take before, during and after the script correction process.</p> <p>The frequency with which tutors consulted the general assessment criteria and the Tutor Marking Notes suggests that most tutors favoured an analytical approach to correction. However, given that most tutors in DL have part‐time appointments in a number of institutions, it is, perhaps, inevitable that their overall approach will be a pragmatic one, incorporating elements of both holistic and analytical procedures. All 10 native speakers read the TMA before commencing script correction, but only one‐half (four tutors) of the non‐native speakers did so, with the remainder preferring to skim through the questions to obtain an idea of the level. Non‐natives also showed a marked preference for re‐reading the general assessment criteria at this stage (five of the eight [63%] did so, as against only 2 out of the 10 native speakers).</p> <p>The second area that the questionnaire addresses is the tutors' views on faults they found, and the approach to language teaching and learning implicit in the method they favour to correct them. Tutors were asked about how they would define a fault, whether they made any distinction between different sorts of faults, the types of strategies they employed when correcting students' work and the extent to which they penalised faults.</p> <p>As can be seen from the results in Table 4, there is little agreement among tutors on an overall definition of the term "fault". Table 4 also shows that many more tutors identified the cause of faults as a failure on the part of the student to learn structures regarded as assessable or "assumed knowledge" than as attempts by learners to try out newly acquired rules.</p> <p>Overall, the responses in Table 4 reflect a wide range of attitudes towards the nature of faults. A large proportion of respondents saw them as an indication of bad or defective learning, with smaller percentages viewing them as evidence of students' efforts to extend and consolidate their knowledge and understanding of how the language works. It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that many tutors appear to regard faults as some sort of indication that learning is taking place, but do not necessarily see them as a means of facilitating learning.</p> <p>Once again, there were some variations in the responses given by the subgroups, with 6 of the 13 female tutors defining a fault as an instance of language that deviates from the norms set out in grammars, whereas none of the males did so. All the non‐natives stated that they usually found "serious" faults (see Question 10, Option 2 for the definition of this type of fault), as did all the tutors aged 50–59. This would suggest that in this survey the oldest tutors and the non‐native speakers tended to take a more severe view of faults than native speakers or tutors in other age bands. In the next section of the questionnaire, tutors were asked about whether they were selective in correcting faults and how they responded to them.</p> <p>The responses in Table 5 reveal that although there is a large measure of agreement that all faults should be identified, there is little consensus on which faults should be corrected or which types of fault merit comments from the tutor.</p> <p>The responses in Table 6 demonstrate that most (but by no means all) tutors are confident of their students' ability to correct minor faults themselves. The overwhelming majority deemed their intervention to be necessary when students had difficulty in using newly learned rules or language. Only a minority of tutors (44%) favoured a light touch (i.e., pointing out a fault, but leaving learners to self‐correct it) when students experienced difficulties with language covered in the course book unit they were studying, or with the assessable points in the assignment. In these circumstances, rather more tutors (56%) felt the need to intervene and provide guidance. A similar percentage felt the need to do so when students showed their ignorance of the language and rules that they might be expected to know prior to embarking on the course.</p> <p>Leaving aside the case for intervention when learners have difficulty in using new language or rules, tutors felt compelled to act in two other sets of circumstances. The first set (i.e., when students have not demonstrated their understanding of material covered in the relevant unit of the course or the assessable points in the assignment) is objective in nature: The tutor intervenes because he or she perceives that the student has failed to achieve the outcomes stated in the course or to meet the criteria specified for that particular assignment. The second set (i.e., when students show that they have not assimilated language and rules that the tutor expects them to know prior to embarking on the course) is rather different and requires tutors to exercise their judgement according to their own experience of teaching students at this level. This is essentially subjective in nature, since one tutor may conclude that the fault is simply a slip and can therefore be self‐corrected, whereas another may decide that it is a mistake or an error (to use James', [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>], terminology) and that some sort of intervention is required. A similar point was made by Corder ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref59">7</reflink>]) when he elaborated on his distinction between mistakes (errors of performance) and errors (systematic errors that reveal the learner's transitional competence in the second language): "... the problem of determining what is a learner's mistake and what a learner's error is one of some difficulty and involves a much more sophisticated study and analysis of errors than is usually accorded them" (p. 167).</p> <p>As our study also reveals, the lack of consensus among tutors on how to respond to learners' faults that are not simply slips or errors of performance illustrates the difficulty of designing assessments that provide teachers with a clear framework for deciding when and how to intervene. Responses to Question 12 revealed some interesting differences in perceptions. For example, 6 of the 10 native speakers favoured identifying serious faults but leaving the student to self‐correct them, whereas the overwhelming majority (six out of a total of eight) of non‐natives thought that this type of fault required correction and guidance from the tutor. The final section in the questionnaire focused on the penalties that tutors judged appropriate for each type of fault.</p> <p>As can be seen from Table 7, respondents were generally in favour of disregarding minor faults or treating them leniently. The responses also indicate that tutors were fairly tolerant towards faults made by students when they tried out new rules. An overwhelming majority believed that students should be severely penalised for serious faults (structures that students should already be familiar with because they learned them a while ago). Opinions on how to treat faults arising from students' failure to learn a rule were more evenly divided.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>Language learning involves complex processes; some are universal (i.e., they are common to all learners regardless of their personal background), whereas others are strongly influenced by factors that affect individual learners (e.g., their intelligence, or the cognitive style they adopt [Skehan, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref60">32</reflink>]]). All language teachers were, at one time, learners, so it is probable that their views of how their students learn and how they should be corrected are coloured to some extent by their own experiences of studying languages. It also seems likely that tutors' knowledge of assessment practices in other higher education institutions has some effect on the way they correct OU TMAs. The influence of such variables is difficult to measure. Nevertheless, the range of views on the nature of faults, how to correct them, the appropriate degree of intervention, the penalties to be imposed, and the most suitable forms of feedback on them makes it reasonable to assume that tutors' personal circumstances and personal experience do play a significant part in shaping their views and attitudes. The fact that in this small‐scale study there appeared to be some degree of correlation between the types of responses given and certain age bands and native/non‐native speakers is interesting, but the size of the sample makes it difficult to claim any universal validity for our findings. Further research is needed in this area; as a first step it would be desirable to repeat the survey with a larger group of tutors working on a number of courses. The survey itself could be widened to investigate the extent to which tutors are influenced by deep‐seated beliefs, and where such beliefs might come from.</p> <p>As views on teaching have evolved, ever‐greater attention has been given to the potential that good feedback and good marking have to facilitate learning (Jarvis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]). In DL programmes in languages, fault correction is acknowledged to be one of the most important aspects of feedback on written assignments, yet far too often it is seen as having a mainly summative function. However, tutors do not necessarily recognise that faults can provide indications of how students are learning or, indeed, that sometimes faults occur because students are experimenting with language that is new to them, as our study shows. The lack of consensus on the types of faults that should be corrected or commented on shows that the concept of classifying faults as slips, mistakes or errors and varying the degree of intervention accordingly has not yet been widely adopted.</p> <p>The surveys also revealed a mismatch between students' perceptions and tutors' intentions, another phenomenon that would be worth more detailed investigation. Although the latter claim that their correction strategies aim to steer learners towards a "formative" view of assessment (e.g., by encouraging self‐correction strategies through the use of marking codes), this is not what students perceive. Most of them see assessment as summative (not their words); that is, that its purpose is to penalise the mistakes they make in order to arrive at a mark. These responses reveal that students have only a limited awareness of the formative function of correction and feedback in DL and its potential for helping them to learn. As Hunt ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>]) points out, for feedback to work effectively, tutors and course providers need to make students more aware of how their learning is monitored and of the ways in which they might be encouraged to respond to feedback.</p> <p>Although the documentation given to tutors contains instructions on the procedures to be followed and specific information on how these instructions should be applied to each TMA, there is generally only limited information on the types of faults that may occur and how they should be treated or penalised. This is somewhat surprising, given this diversity of views among tutors and the lack of consensus about the types of remedial action necessary, but the obvious solution to the problem—issuing tutors with detailed instructions on how to deal with every conceivable type of fault—may not be feasible or desirable. However, by adopting an alternative approach (i.e., encouraging tutors to distinguish between slips, mistakes and errors, and use these distinctions to determine how they should respond), we may be able to move towards a more effective solution. By encouraging tutors to devote a little more attention to the steps necessary to deal with the fault, and rather less attention to the fault itself, we are also likely to encourage them to consider how faults reflect the learning that is taking place, how they can be used to make the learning process more effective, and how they can foster tutor–student dialogue.</p> <p>This sort of approach could also help students appreciate how and why they are assessed, and assume greater responsibility for their own learning. As we pointed out in the section "The Distance Learning Context", this is particularly important in DL, but the data from the student survey suggest that the aims and intentions of assessment and tutors' correction practices may not be fully understood. Nevertheless, there is a real need for further research in this area. Our own study was limited to a fairly small sample of tutors, so it would be unwise to use it as the basis for drawing any general conclusions about the influence that their beliefs and attitudes might have upon the types of linguistic corrections that they make and how they make them. What has emerged from this study, however, is that, at present, correction and feedback tend to be regarded as the sole responsibility of tutors, but if we can give students greater scope to participate more actively in assessment, tutor–student dialogue is likely to be fostered and learners will be encouraged to engage in the knowledge construction process.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-15">Notes on Contributors</hd> <p>Cristina Ros i Solé is a lecturer in Spanish in the Department of Languages, Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, UK.</p> <p>Mike Truman is a lecturer in Spanish in the Department of Languages, Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The Open University, UK.</p> <hd id="AN0018622219-16">Appendix: Tutor questionnaire</hd> <p>Error correction questionnaire: Teachers' approaches to marking.</p> <p>Any information you give will be treated in the strictest confidence. No individual will be identified in any publication in which reference is made to the results of this survey.</p> <hd1 id="AN0018622219-17">In Questions 1–5 you are asked to give us some information about yourself. Please circle the relevant number to choose the appropriate statement or information.</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Your experience as an L140 tutor:</item> <p></p> <item> 1. This is the first year I have worked as an L140 tutor.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I have worked previously as an L140 tutor.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Your sex:</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 1. Male</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 2. Female</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Your age:</item> <p></p> <item> 1. 20–29</item> <p></p> <item> 2. 30–39</item> <p></p> <item> 3. 40–49</item> <p></p> <item> 4. 50–59</item> <p></p> <item> 5. 60–69</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Your own level in the language:</item> <p></p> <item> 1. I am a non‐native speaker with a good command of Spanish.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I am a non‐native speaker, but I have a command of the language which is close to that of a native speaker.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I am a native speaker.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. In which other type(s) of institution(s) do you teach Spanish (part‐time or full‐time)? Circle the relevant number(s):</item> <p></p> <item> 1. None.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Secondary school (state or private).</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Further education college.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Adult education centre.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. University or other higher education institution.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. Other (please specify).</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0018622219-18">In Questions 6–8 we ask you to provide information about the steps you take <emph>before, during</emph> and <emph>after</emph> the correction of a batch of TMAs. We are only interested in the three main steps that you take in each case.</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 7. Circle the relevant numbers to indicate three steps you usually take before correcting a student's piece of written work (TMA script):</item> <p></p> <item> 1. reading the TMA;</item> <p></p> <item> 2. reading the Tutor Marking Notes and listing the assessable points;</item> <p></p> <item> 3. skimming through the TMA to get an idea of the level;</item> <p></p> <item> 4. comparing it with other scripts;</item> <p></p> <item> 5. reading for content first;</item> <p></p> <item> 6. referring to/re‐reading the general assessment criteria;</item> <p></p> <item> 7. making notes for myself before writing comments for the student;</item> <p></p> <item> 8. none of these.</item> <p></p> <item> 9. Circle the relevant numbers to indicate three actions you usually take while you correct a piece of written work (TMA script):</item> <p></p> <item> 1. write comments in the margin or at the bottom of the page;</item> <p></p> <item> 2. use a system of symbols to indicate faults to students;</item> <p></p> <item> 3. correct the language the student has produced;</item> <p></p> <item> 4. correct the content;</item> <p></p> <item> 5. consult other tutors when in doubt about the correctness of an instance of language;</item> <p></p> <item> 6. compare it with other scripts;</item> <p></p> <item> 7. read Tutor Marking Notes;</item> <p></p> <item> 8. re‐read/refer to the general assessment criteria;</item> <p></p> <item> 9. point out the most common faults and explain how to remedy them (i.e., grammar rules, idioms, etc.).</item> <p></p> <item> 10. Circle the relevant numbers to indicate three actions you usually take after correcting the scripts:</item> <p></p> <item> 1. analyse the faults, assess their relative importance and comment on them;</item> <p></p> <item> 2. check that I've corrected everything;</item> <p></p> <item> 3. write comments in the margin or at the bottom of the page;</item> <p></p> <item> 4. gauge the importance of the faults and decide how many points should be deducted for each one;</item> <p></p> <item> 5. count the faults and work out the percentage to be awarded;</item> <p></p> <item> 6. check the Tutor Marking Notes and general assessment criteria to assess the student's performance before giving him/her a mark;</item> <p></p> <item> 7. point out the most common faults and explain how to remedy them (i.e., grammar rules, idioms, etc.).</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0018622219-19">In Questions 9–13 you are asked to indicate your views on the nature of the faults you encounter in your students' work and provide information on how you correct them.</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 8. How would you define a fault? Circle 1, 2, or 3 to indicate the statement that matches most closely your own definition. If none of them is appropriate, please circle 4 and write your own definition in the box that follows the statements.</item> <p></p> <item> 1. An instance of language that doesn't sound right to a native speaker;</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Any instance of language that deviates from the norms of that language as set out in grammars etc;</item> <p></p> <item> 3. An instance of language that the learner is in the process of learning but s/he has not acquired yet;</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Other. Please write your own definition.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Circle the relevant number(s) to indicate how you would define the faults you usually find in students' work.</item> <p></p> <item> 1. Minor faults, e.g., lapses of the pen.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Serious faults, i.e., faults in structures with which students should already be familiar because they have already been covered in the course book <emph>or</emph> faults occurring in structures that are the main teaching points for the course book units on which the student is being tested in the TMA.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Faults that occur because students are constantly learning new rules of the language and trying them out.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Faults that occur in students' work because they failed to learn a rule or learned it badly some years ago.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Other types of faults (please specify in box that follows).</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> 6. In your answers in this section (11[a]–11[c]) we would like you to describe the sort of correction and feedback you give on student scripts. Please circle one number in (a), one in (b), and one in (c) to indicate the statements that describe what you _B_generally</bold> tend to do:</item> <p></p> <item> a. <emph>Identification of faults</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 1. I identify all faults made by students.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I identify only the faults that relate to points which, in my view, students should know or have learned, but have failed to do so.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I identify only the faults relating to points already covered in the course, or assessed in the TMA.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I identify only the faults that I regard as serious, or that occur frequently.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I identify none of the faults.</item> <p></p> <item> b. <emph>Correction of faults</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 1. I correct all faults made by students.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I correct only the faults that relate to points which, in my view, students should know or have learned, but have failed to do so.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I correct only the faults relating to points already covered in the course, or assessed in the TMA.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I correct only the faults that I regard as serious, or that occur frequently.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I correct none of the faults.</item> <p></p> <item> c. <emph>Comments on faults</emph></item> <p></p> <item> 1. I comment on all faults made by students.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I comment only on the faults that relate to points which, in my view, students should know or have learned, but have failed to do so.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. I comment only on the faults relating to points already covered in the course, or assessed in the TMA.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. I comment only on the faults that I regard as serious, or that occur frequently.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. I comment on none of the faults.</item> <p></p> <item> 6. Now indicate with a tick in the relevant box of the grid your views on how tutors should point out to students the different types of faults described in Question 10 and give them guidance on correcting them. For example, if you think that students can detect and correct minor faults themselves, you should tick box 1 in row (a), and so on.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><bold>Type of fault (see the five categories given in Question 10)→</bold></td><td><bold>1</bold></td><td><bold>2</bold></td><td><bold>3</bold></td><td><bold>4</bold></td><td><bold>5</bold></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(a) Students can detect and correct these faults by themselves</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(b) The tutor usually has to point out these faults, but once s/he has done so, the student can self‐correct them</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(c) The tutor should always point out these faults and give the student guidance on how to correct them</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(d) The tutor should not point out these faults or give the student guidance on how to correct them</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 7. Now indicate with a tick in the relevant box of the grid your views on how the types of faults listed in Question 10 should be treated by tutors.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td><bold>Type of fault (see the five categories given in Question 10)→</bold></td><td><bold>1</bold></td><td><bold>2</bold></td><td><bold>3</bold></td><td><bold>4</bold></td><td><bold>5</bold></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(a) Students should not be penalised for this type of fault</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(b) Students should be slightly penalised for this type of fault</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>(c) Students should be severely penalised for this type of fault</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0018622219-20">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0018622219-21"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 1. From this point on we shall use the generic term "fault" to refer to unacceptable deviations from the expected norm. We prefer this term to "mistake", "error", and so on, because the latter have been used at different times to denote specific types of deviations.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> 2. Solecisms have only marginal relevance for the types of learners discussed in this article (see James, 1998, pp. 83–84). They are defined as deviations from the rules established by purists and descriptive (and prescriptive) grammar manuals. For example, many native speakers of English regularly split infinitives ("to boldly go") even though this practice is condemned in numerous guides to English usage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref2" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> 3. Note that we have rounded the exact percentages for each response up or down to convert them to whole numbers, so in some cases the overall totals for the responses to each question may add up to more than or less than 100.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0018622219-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P.1994. Negative feedback and regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(iv): 465–483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anson, C. M.2000. Response and the social construction of error. Assessing Writing, 7: 5–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartram, M. and Walton, R.1991. Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes, Hove, , England:: Language Teaching Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G.1993. The case for constructivist classrooms, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref46" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chastain, K.1981. Native speaker evaluation of student composition errors. The Modern Language Journal, 65: 288–294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Clapham, C. and Corson, D., eds. 1997. Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment, Dordrecht, , The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref52" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Corder, S. P.1967. The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4): 161–170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref48" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crystal, D.1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language, Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ellis, R.1997. Second language acquisition, Oxford, , England: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eskey, D. E.1983. Meanwhile back in the real world ... Accuracy and fluency in second language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17: 315–323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fathman, A. K. and Whalley, E.1990. "Teacher responses to student writing: Focus on form versus content". In Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, Edited by: Kroll, B.178–180. Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R. and Tinti, S.1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6: 155–182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gannon, P.1985. Assessing writing: Principles and practice in marking written English, London: Arnold.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. B.1996. Theory and practice of writing, London: Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamp‐Lyons, L.1990. "Second language writing: Assessment issues". In Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, Edited by: Kroll, B.78–80. Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunt, M.2001. "Principles and theoretical approaches in assessment". In Supporting lifelong language learning: Theoretical and practical approaches, Edited by: Arthur, L. and Hurd, S.152–164. London: CILT/The Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland, F.1998. The impact of teacher‐written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7: 255–286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyland, F.2001. Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning, 16(3): 233–247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, C.1998. Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis, Harlow, , England: Addison Wesley Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarvis, P.1978. Students' learning and tutors' marking. Teaching at a Distance, 13: 13–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonassen, D. H., Mayes, T. and McAleese, R.1993. "A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education". In Designing environments for constructive learning, Edited by: Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. and Jonassen, D. H.231–247. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer‐Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kroll, B., ed. 1990. Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landriault, B.1980. Analyse des erreurs et enseignement des langues. Bulletin of the CAAL, 2(2): 84–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leki, I.1990. "Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response". In Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, Edited by: Kroll, B.57–68. Cambridge, , UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, S.2000. A sociocultural perspective on teacher response: Is there a student in the room?. Assessing Writing, 7: 79–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nassaji, H. and Swain, M.2000. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English. Articles in Language Awareness, 9(1): 34–51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phelps, L. W.1989. "Images of student writing: The deep structure of teacher response". In Writing and response, Edited by: Anson, C.37–67. Urbana, IL: NCTE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, B.2001. "Understanding errors and mistakes". In Supporting lifelong language learning: Theoretical and practical approaches, Edited by: Arthur, L. and Hurd, S.139–151. London: CILT/The Open University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Probst, R. E.1989. "Transactional theory and response to student writing". In Writing and response, Edited by: Anson, C.68–79. Urbana, IL: NCTE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ros i Solé, C. and Truman, M.2000. "What does it take to agree on a mark? Approaches to the correction of linguistic inaccuracy in supported distance learning programmes in languages". In Current trends in modern languages provision for non‐specialist linguists, Edited by: Fay, M. and Ferney, D.151–166. London: CILT/APU.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, H.1994. Teachers' practices and students' preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11: 46–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skehan, P.1989. Individual differences in second‐language learning, London: Edward Arnold.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommers, N.1982. Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33: 148–156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Straub, R.2000. The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7: 23–55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorpe, M.1998. Assessment and "third generation" distance education. Distance Education, 19(2): 265–286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truscott, J.1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46: 327–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truscott, J.1999. The case for "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2): 111–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wall, S. V. and Hull, G. A.1989. "The semantics of error: What do teachers know?". In Writing and response, Edited by: Anson, C.261–292. Urbana, IL: NCTE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, C.1994. "Language learning strategy research in distance education: The yoked subject technique". In Research in distance education 3: Revised papers from the third Research in Distance Education conference, Deakin University 1993, Edited by: Evans, T. and Murphy, D.10–20. Geelong, Vic, , Australia: Deakin University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, C.1995. Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: Research Findings. System, 23(2): 207–221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, C.1997. Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning. Distance Education, 18(1): 178–196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zamel, V.1985. Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19: 79–101.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cristina Ros i Solé and Mike Truman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref60"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ720948
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Feedback in Distance Learning Programmes in Languages: Attitudes to Linguistic Faults and Implications for the Learning Process
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ros+i+Sole%2C+Cristina%22">Ros i Sole, Cristina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Truman%2C+Mike%22">Truman, Mike</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Distance+Education%22"><i>Distance Education</i></searchLink>. Nov 2005 26(3):299-323.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutors%22">Tutors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Open+Universities%22">Open Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback%22">Feedback</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distance+Education%22">Distance Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Languages%22">Second Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish%22">Spanish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0158-7919
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In distance learning provision in languages, fault correction and feedback can facilitate teacher?student dialogue. This article examines teachers' beliefs and assumptions about faults and the attitudes of both teachers and learners towards the correction process, all of which can play a key role in fostering this dialogue. Our findings are based on two surveys, one of 215 students enrolled on an intermediate Open University Spanish course and one of a sample of 18 tutors who teach on this course. The results of the two questionnaires suggest that the strategies currently in use for identifying and correcting faults may not be explicit enough. We conclude that this problem may be addressed if both tutors and students are given the tools to make the process more transparent and are encouraged to see dialogue as an essential component in the feedback mechanism.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 42
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=W6377K382X66N506" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=W6377K382X66N506</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ720948
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ720948
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 299
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tutors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Open Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Distance Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Feedback in Distance Learning Programmes in Languages: Attitudes to Linguistic Faults and Implications for the Learning Process
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ros i Sole, Cristina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Truman, Mike
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0158-7919
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Distance Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1