error correction

Error Correction | Julian Brasington | August 10th, 1999

All quiet on the Western Front - so I thought I might start something.

Sue Murray, in a recent article ('Correct me if I'm wrong', MET. Vol.8 No.3, 1999 pp.43-47) argues that "Perhaps we as teachers should give up trying to 'correct' speech and ... rather... devote more time to the quality of input we provide..." In support, she cites cases where language learners (without teacher correction) follow 'incorrect' phrases such as 'I buyed a...' with 'correct' ones e.g. 'I bought a' within the same communicative event, and posits that resultantly "there could be some sort of internal self-correcting process which sorts itself out independently of any external efforts to draw attention" to a given error.

I'm broadly with Murray on this one but wonder whether learner ability to offer different patterns (I buyed a / I bought a) is (a) evidence of acquisition in process, (b) a cry for help e.g. 'hey teacher, I'm using both of these - which is best?', or something of both. Obviously context plays an important part in determining an answer to this one, but... answers on a postcard to Dugout, No.1 The Somme.

Julian Brasington

Error Correction | Colin Graham | September 10th, 1999

All quiet on the Eastern Front too.

Two points from Julian's comments:

1. I would never trust anyone who says that there is no teacher correction. Whilst we may not consciously intervene to correct perceived errors, how aware are we of body language, raised eyebrows, head tilts and other automatic signals which we might make if we misunderstood a native or more fluent speaker who made a similar kind of error?

2. If the learner is genuinely self-correcting, then, to me, this is probably a signal that awareness of an underlying grammatical or semantic principle or guideline has been achieved and is being synthesized (ie a step towards acquisition, whatever that may be). I don't buy the "cry for help", unless the student is aware of a problem but not knowing the correct answer. If they are aware, then I find that often the help will be explicitly sought rather than the process of fishing for correction or help from the teacher being adopted.

Other strategies I have seen have clear pauses, where the student has some doubt and uses one or two different forms, to allow an opportunity for the teacher to intervene if they chose to do so. It is never fully clear from papers what the surrounding influences are in any analyzed discourse.

The idea of giving up "trying to 'correct' speech and devote more time to the quality of input" is a whole different subject, and a minefield where this particular angel certainly fears to tread at the moment!

Colin Graham

Re: Error correction | John Bartrick | September 14th, 1999

Further to Julian B's comments:

As part of my MET assignment I carried out some scale research into the way students can correct each other. A more unexpected student-student exchange was as follows. The students are reconstructing a dictation they have just heard.

S1: "I going to the cinema."

S2: Yeah "going"

S1: Err "I'm" no "I'm going."

S2: "I'm going to the cinema".

In fact S2 mistakenly offers support to his partner by agreeing with the proposal although the form is not correct. S1 is not distracted, however, and manages to repair his own error. This seems to vindicate the idea that peer correction offers more affective support to the learners. It also shows how teachers can 'judge' learners' incorrect output as errors when they may be 'mistakes' or slips.

I'm not sure that this gets any closer to an answer to "to correct or not to correct", but I think it shows that peer correction can create an environment where acquisition can occur.

Anyway, any other thoughts from the classroom?

John Bartrick

Re: Error Correction | John | September 14th, 1999

Yes Robert, in my previous message I was talking rather out of context. The assignment I mentioned examined why the feedback I, as teacher, often give seems to have minimal effect, while a particular type of peer correction exercise produced more encouraging results.

More affective feedback between peers than between teacher and student could be one contributing factor to this difference, I thought. The fact that the unequal power relationship between 37 year-old teacher and 10 year-old child had been altered seemed to have some effect.

Vive la discussion!

John

Re: Error Correction | Jonathan | September 14th, 1999

One anecdote that you might find amusing from a group of adult learners in France. When one student corrected another, the student who had been corrected actually stuck out her tongue and blew a raspberry at the other student. This unusual piece of classroom interaction I interpreted as a voice against peer correction. I think the intended message was; it is the teacher's role to correct and not fellow students. This, however, was the reaction of one student. As most (?) teachers I try to encourage peer correction and my impression is that it is generally accepted but this one anecdote shows that all students do not accept peer correction.

Best wishes to all on the course.

Jonathan
Lille, France

Re: Error Correction | Keith Richards | September 15th, 1999

Jonathan's comment at the end of his anecdote (for which many thanks - a beaut!) reminded me of Nunan's research towards the end of the eighties where he compared students' views of what was valuable with the views of teachers. If I remember rightly, peer correction threw up the biggest difference. No need to say who valued it and who didn't.

Keith
LSU

Re: Error Correction | Colin Graham | September 16th, 1999

As is usual with discussions, the subject has sprung off in a completely different direction from the initial input.

The diversion into peer correction is interesting but it has caused me to return to Julian's original comments about self-correction. Having re-read that and my initial response, I now know more clearly what I wanted to say the first time.

The part that bothers me is the idea that an internal self-correcting procedure will happen without external attention being drawn to the error.

I think there is sufficient research, particularly by Rod Ellis et al, which shows that awareness of grammar always precedes acquisition. To me this extends to errors.

A mistake must be pointed out externally (by a book, tape*, teacher, peer or whatever), at least once, for it to be recognized as such.

Also, a student does not understand the mistake they have made until they can self-correct.

This leads me to suggest that the sticking-out-the-tongue incident may have happened for two reasons:

1 the student did not recognize the authority of the corrector,

2 the student would have self-corrected but was not given enough time to do so.

I've met students who do not accept my corrections as authoritative, and consult their dictionaries "just to double-check". Recently, I've also noticed a lot of spontaneous peer-correction happening because I've started waiting a little bit longer before I intervene.

My rule of thumb is: once could be a slip, twice is probably an error they don't know about and needs pointing out. It seems to be working so far.

And, in case you're wondering how a tape can correct errors, I've noticed that by getting students to record themselves and review their performance, they can spot their own mistakes more frequently.