Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 2:1 (2020) ► pp.131–143
Practitioner Research Article

Consciousness-raising and written error correction for young learners

A C-R action research project in a private language school

| Big Bow English Lab

Most experts in teaching children state that teaching grammar in the traditional way is inappropriate for children under the age of ten. However, very little research has been done on the effectiveness of consciousness-raising (C-R) with young learners. An action research (AR) project was conducted in a private language school for children, to investigate if a consciousness-raising project would be an effective way to help children notice and correct the ten most commonly made errors they made in their writing of weekly book reports. It was concluded that this consciousness-raising project was effective and a positive experience for children over the age of ten, but sometimes frustrating and less effective for younger learners. The conclusions reached through this action research project led to changes in school policy on error correction, as well as greater efforts to educate the parents of the students.

Keywords: consciousness-raising, young learners, action research, developmentally appropriate, grammar teaching, error self-correction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Situation
  • 3.Literature review
  • 4.First action research Cycle
  • 5.Analysis of the first action research cycle
  • 6.The second action research cycle
  • 7.Post-action research questionnaire and student feedback
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 2 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.19010.ito
References
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B.
(2008) Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Amirian, S. M. R., & Sadeghi, F.
(2012) The effect of grammar consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners performance. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 708–720.Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catling, P. S., & O’Leary, G. F.
(1952) The chocolate touch. New York, NY: Morrow.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2002) Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guidelines for Using ELLiE Smiley Questionnaires
2010 Retrieved from: [URL]
Harley, B.
(2014) Charlie bumpers vs. The teacher of the year. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kersten, S.
(2015) Language development in young learners: The role of formulaic language, 129–145. Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D.
(1983) The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. M.
(2006) How languages are learned [Kindle version]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linse, C. T., & Nunan, D.
(2006) Practical English language teaching: Young learners. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lobel, A.
(1992) Frog and toad are friends. London: Heinemann Young Books.Google Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2006) Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soseki, N.
(2013) Young adult Eli readers – English: Botchan + CD. Italy: ELI s.r.l.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S.
(1997) Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT journal, 51(4), 326–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiens, K.
(2012) I won’t hire people who use poor grammar. Here’s why. Harvard Business Review. [URL]
Wray, A.
(2005) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar