Peer Correction

Learners correcting each other's errors, either in speech or writing. Distinct from teacher correction in that it distributes the corrective role and develops learner autonomy.

Rationale

• Shifts the classroom from teacher-centred to learner-centred
• Develops metalinguistic awareness — noticing errors in others' output requires analytical skill
• Reduces teacher talking time and increases learner engagement
• Builds a collaborative classroom culture where error is normalised

When to Use It

• Writing: Peer editing of drafts before teacher review (Hyland 2003). Works best with a checklist or rubric so learners know what to look for.
• Speaking: After a communicative activity, pairs review each other's errors noted on a feedback sheet.
• Controlled practice: Partners check each other's gap-fill or sentence transformation exercises.

How to Set It Up

1. Train students first. Model what good feedback looks like. Distinguish between content and language feedback.
2. Provide a focus. Don't ask students to "correct everything" — target specific areas (e.g., verb tenses, article use).
3. Use a structured format. Checklists, codes, or guided questions reduce anxiety and increase quality.
4. Debrief. Teacher reviews key errors that peers missed — peer correction supplements, not replaces, teacher feedback.

Risks

• Students may reinforce each other's errors (especially at lower levels)
• Face-threatening if Rapport is low — students may feel judged by peers
• Cultural resistance in contexts where the teacher is seen as sole authority

Link to Autonomy

Peer correction develops self-regulation. When learners practise identifying errors in others' work, they transfer that skill to monitoring their own output — a bridge to Self-Correction.