Skip to main content

Correcting students' errors

I am currently reading The Handbook of Language Teaching edited by Michael Long and Catherine Doughty. It's an excellent summary of research into many aspects of second language learning and teaching. Some teachers may find it slightly heavy-going, full, as it is, with detailed references to research, but I recommend it to you if you are looking for some serious methodological underpinnings to your work as a language teacher.

Diane Larsen-Freeman, a major name is second language acquisition research writes an interesting chapter about teaching grammar, part of which is devoted to error correction.

She begins by saying that the value of correction is hotly debated and that research offers no clear guidance on the best approach. That's useful! Some researchers feel that correcting at all is a waste of time since it makes students anxious and doesn't actually improve acquisition. Most researchers, however, take the view that giving correction in a supportive way is of value.

As with other areas of grammar instruction, you can correct explicitly or implicitly. In the latter case this takes place through means such as asking for clarification, confirming what the student has said, and by using recasts. She gives this example of an interaction between teacher and student:

Student: I was in pub
Teacher: In the pub?
Student: Yeah and I was drinking beer with my friend.
Teacher: Which pub did you go to?

Recasts are attractive because they are barely intrusive and take place within a meaningful exchange. However, some students seem to ignore them, at least in the short term. Perhaps there is a case, therefore, for being more explicit about when a student has made a mistake.

Another appealing approach is to use a prompt, such as repeating the student's error verbatim with a rising intonation, witholding approval and waiting for the student to "self-repair".

Sometimes explicit negative feedback might pay dividends, especially where there is a clear contrast between the first and second language. Without specific negative feedback the student may never actually realise they are making mistakes.

Larsen-Freeman says, and she is no doubt right, that error correction may be variously effective depending on the setting, the student, the age of the student and the type of error being made. There is probably no one best method for all occasions and as a teacher you may need to exercise very subtle judgments.

What about correcting students' written work? She does not refer to this, but once again, research does not give us definitive answers. Most teachers like to supply explicit corrections and some evidence supports this approach. Other studies, however, have shown that when two groups are compared, one whose written work is left uncorrected and the other supplied with corrections, there is little if any difference in the performance of the two groups.

So could it be better to offer implicit, or indirect correction, i.e. where errors are underlined but corrected versions not inserted. Gianfranco Conti, in a detailed blog on this issue (https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/why-teachers-should-not-bother-correcting-errors-in-their-students-writing/) points out the difficulties of this approach, e.g. the fact that students may not know the right answer.

So there are few unambiguous answers in this field. As always, it is really hard to set up rigorous, long term studies which isolate one approach over another. So teachers are left with their gut feelings and sense of duty. My own inclination during oral work was to ignore error or use recasts far more than provide explicit negative feedback. On paper I would use a mixture of explicit correction, some indirect correction (underlining) and, with the weakest students, I would sometimes ignore minor error for fear of plastering too much red ink over their work



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Sentence Stealers with a twist

Sentence Stealers is a reading aloud game invented by Gianfranco Conti. I'll describe the game to you, then suggest an extension of it which goes a bit further than reading aloud. By the way, I shouldn't need to justify the usefulness of reading aloud, but just in case, we are talking here about matching sounds to spellings, practising listening, pronunciation and intonation and repeating/recycling high frequency language patterns.

This is how it works:

Display around 15 sentences on the board, preferably ones which show language patterns you have been working on recently or some time ago.Hand out four cards or slips of paper to each student.On each card students must secretly write a sentence from the displayed list.Students then circulate around the class, approaching their classmates and reading a sentence from the displayed list. If the other person has that sentence on one of their cards, they must hand over the card. The other person then does the same, choosing a sentenc…

Have a repertoire, lighten your workload (part one)

The next four blogs I'm going to post are the equivalent of one of those TV clip shows - you know, the ones where they need to fill a weekly slot by showing the best bits, or deleted scenes, from the series. But these four blogs have a theme. The clue is in the title. Like you, I worked hard when I was teaching, but I was pretty good at keeping things in proportion using a combination of economical planning, rapid marking and experience. The extra time those things created even allowed me to stay relaxed and have fun (most of the time) and to come up with the occasional innovative idea.

So, what I'm going to suggest here is that, if you have a little repertoire of go-to classroom activities, you can save yourself a lot of time and stress, and, what's more, all for the benefit of your classes. You see, I think (actually, I know) pupils like routines, but they also appreciate a bit of variety. So if you apply your repertoire of lesson/activity types sensibly you can satisfy b…

"Ask and move" task

This is a lesson plan using an idea from our book Breaking the Sound Barrier (Conti and Smith, 2019). It's a task-based lesson adapted from an idea from Paul Nation and Jonathan Newton. It is aimed at Y10-11 pupils aiming at Higher Tier GCSE, but is easily adaptable to other levels and languages, including A-level. This has been posted as a resource on frenchteacher.net.

This type of lesson plan excites me more than many, because if it runs well, you get a classroom of busy communication when you can step back, monitor and occasionally intervene as students get on with listening, speaking and writing.

Curriculum planning

Many MFL departments are talking about planning in response to whole school initiatives related to Ofsted's latest emphasis: CURRICULUM. This post is about how a department might respond to such an initiative. It's fairly broad-brush, given the nature of the issue, but not too airy-fairy, I hope.

Here is Ofsted's definition of the curriculum:

“The curriculum is a framework for setting out the aims of a programme of education, including the knowledge and understanding to be gained at each stage (intent); for translating that framework over time into a structure and narrative, within an institutional context (implementation) and for evaluating what knowledge and understanding pupils have gained against expectations (impact/achievement).” (My highlighting.)

So Ofsted wants schools to:

• know their curriculum – design and intent;
• know how their curriculum is being implemented;
• know what impact their curriculum is having on pupils’ knowledge and understanding.

(I'…