When a language learner makes a spoken error in the target language (TL), the instructor has but two choices: to address it or to ignore it and continue on.
By having their errors addressed on the spot, students realize that an error has been made, and may even desire such correction (Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth, Day, Chun, & Luppescu, 1983). However, there is certainly no guarantee that the learners have grasped the meaning nor understood the gravity of the error. Additionally, the flow of communication in the target language has been temporarily interrupted, and can be delayed further when classroom codes of interaction require that the learner acknowledge the error, listen to an elaboration by the teacher, and repair the error, even if this takes a number of attempts by the student (Chaudron, 1988). Furthermore, if language learners constantly receive corrective feedback, they may become discouraged, frustrated, and even lose enthusiasm for speaking in the TL (Chastain, 1975; Vigil & Oller, 1976).
So, for the sake of communication, should errors be ignored? Schmidt and Frota (1986) suggest that, just as interrupting L2 dialogue in the classroom to repair an error is influential feedback, so is allowing errors to go uncorrected because students may assume that the spoken L2 is accurate. Hence, students may internalize faulty language structures and develop classroom pidgins (Ringbom, 1987; Hammerly, 1991). Besides these arguments advocating classroom correction, there is also ample empirical evidence that correcting learners' errors is an effective means of improving grammatical accuracy of L2 speech (Tomasello & Herron, 1988; 1989; White, 1991; White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991; Carroll, Roberge, & Swain, 1992; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Trahey & White, 1993).
Considering there are legitimate arguments both for and against addressing errors, it is imperative that the language teacher approach errors with a reasoned and consistent strategy to ensure that errors are addressed using a consistent and reasonable method, and with a defined plan in mind. The purpose of this article is to offer criteria for strategic classroom error correction and to describe some common corrective techniques for teachers.
Criteria for Rational Error Correction
Devising a reasoned and consistent plan for correcting students' errors requires informed judgments about the nature of the errors. This section will highlight factors to consider in developing criteria for error correction.
Exposure
If one of the objectives in the L2 classroom is to promote language creation, then learners should be encouraged to make inferences and guesses about the TL using new, unfamiliar, or little-studied structures when they speak. Undoubtedly, this provides fertile ground for errors, prompting Allwright and Bailey (1991) to conclude that it is unfair to penalize students for errors when they lack exposure to such forms or functions. On the contrary, learners should be truly commended and encouraged for attempting to push the boundaries of their language abilities. Moreover, encouraging signals from the teacher can also serve as motivation for other students to attempt new language in unfamiliar linguistic waters.
Additionally, learners who make errors while creating language may not even be aware of what a correct form looks like or be cognitively ready to comply with the morphological, syntactic, or lexical rules associated with the error. As various morpheme studies suggest, learners may acquire structures in a natural order, so elements that are beyond their language capabilities cannot be acquired until the particular language learner is linguistically capable (Dulay & Burt 1974a, 1974b; Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974; Larsen-Freeman, 1976; Brown, 1983). In other words, correcting these types of unfamiliar errors may be ineffectual.
Seriousness
A second factor is whether or not a particular error is serious. Again, the objectives of the L2 classroom should be considered before determining the gravity of an error. If a constant flow of communication is one of the objectives, the error must impede communication before it should be considered an error that necessitates correction.
In fact, within the confines of the classroom, and under the pressure of having to produce accurately in the L2, students may be nervous, anxious, upset, or excited, causing them to stumble, even with familiar structures. Corder (1967) considers such performance slips as mistakes, hardly of a serious nature. On the other hand, "true" errors cannot be self-corrected without some additional information because there is a lack of understanding by the language learner. Hence, it is wise to allow learners ample opportunities and sufficient time to self-correct. The teacher that is too quick to interrupt with corrections can make the classroom an austere place to learn language.
With this in mind, it is imperative for the teacher to identify what constitutes a serious error. It may be useful to view errors in a hierarchy, ranked according to their seriousness, with errors that significantly impair communication at the top of the list, followed by errors that occur frequently, errors that reflect misunderstanding or incomplete acquisition of the current classroom focus, and errors that have a highly stigmatizing effect on the listeners. Stigmatization can be recognized by the teacher through simple observation of the speaker and fellow classmates. Recurrent errors, profound pronunciation errors, or errors of familiar forms can cause the frustration level to rise, not only for individual speakers, but for the entire class. Thus, it behooves the teacher to address such errors (Burt & Kiparsky, 1972; Hendrickson, 1979; Walz, 1982). Burt and Kiparsky also consider global errors to be more serious than local errors. An example of a global error is if a student says, "I buy car, after I have trouble with car"; it is apparent that there is a problem between the independent and the dependent clauses. Global errors should almost always be corrected because they cause confusion regarding the relationship between constituent clauses, whereas local errors occur within a clause and should be corrected on a case-by-case basis. Once the global errors are addressed, the utterance becomes a much more manageable, "After I buy car, I have trouble with car." The remaining uncorrected article and tense errors in this example are local, so the teacher needs to evaluate their relative importance as they relate to other factors before addressing them.
Students' Needs
A third factor that should be considered when forming criteria is the needs individual students. Self-confident, capable students will often profit from even minor corrections. On the other hand, most struggling students should probably receive correction only when they make major errors (Walz, 1982).
To assess individual students, the teacher should listen to their utterances in the L2 for a while to determine the language trouble spots, noting frequency and gravity. Then, the teacher can condense the list of errors to a manageable number and work consistently on those errors with that particular student until the student's performance level in those trouble spot areas shows significant improvement. The teacher may find that a specific error is troublesome for the majority of the class, in which case he or she may wish to reinforce a specific point by using drills or explicit instruction (Burt & Kiparsky, 1972).
Consistency
At the pinnacle of importance when addressing errors in the classroom is consistency. Without it, corrections will be offered arbitrarily, depending solely on the teacher's patience, mood, motivation, or attitude. Stokes (1975) provides a perfect example of a teacher who decides to correct an error related to article usage, but abandons the effort after the student fails to correct the error.
S3: When did you leave Venezuela?
Eulyces: I left Venezuela the eleventh of January.
Teacher: Good.
...[later in lesson]
Teacher: When was he born?
Eulyces: Twenty...twenty-first of January nineteen sixty-three.
Teacher: Come on Eulyces; you missed something here. Just say it over again.
Eulyces: Twenty...
Teacher: the twenty-first.
Eulyces: twenty-first of February nineteen sixty-three.
Teacher: Good. (p. 7)
It is evident that the teacher in this instance was unwilling (for whatever reason) to attend to the error in a consistent and persistent manner. As a result, the student probably believes that he repaired the error correctly, although it was not repaired at all. Consistency requires that the teacher bring the student to a point where the erroneous structure is, at the very least, recognized. Then, if possible, thethe student may be able to repair the error.
A second benefit of a consistent approach is that it moderates the affects of a teacher's disposition. Just as students can become frustrated, so can teachers. As a result, language instructors may react differently to different students within the classroom, depending on the situation, the frustration level, motivation, and attitudes of the teacher and the language learners. Relying on a consistent approach helps teachers avoid reacting emotionally to students' errors (Chaudron, 1988).
Besides being consistent regarding the manner in which an error is corrected, the language teacher should also be consistent in the particular errors that he or she chooses to address. By working consistently on particular errors, repetition should make the individual learners, not to mention the teacher, aware of specific trouble spots so attention can be focused on those areas (Burt & Kiparsky, 1972).
Error correction can assist language learners to acquire structures in the TL if the language teacher consistently applies these criteria: (a) the learner's amount of exposure to the language structure or form, (b) the seriousness of the error, (c) whether or not the error has impaired communication significantly, (d) the frequency of the error, and (e) the needs of the students.
Error Correction Techniques
The purpose of error correction is to improve learners' accuracy and language acquisition. To help learners become not only increasingly accurate but also increasingly independent as English speakers, learners should always be provided with ample opportunities to self-correct, and engage in peer correction. As criteria are fashioned, the teacher will develop preferred ways to address errors (cf. Chaudron 1977, 1988). The following discussion describes of some of the more prevalent techniques teachers use.
Walz (1982) divides error correction into three distinct types: They are: (a) self-correction with the teacher's help, (b) peer-correction, and (c) teacher correction. Based on his model, Omaggio (1986) describes the most commonly employed types within each category.
Self-correction with the teacher's help is an excellent way to address errors. The first type Omaggio offers is pinpointing, whereby the teacher localizes the error by repeating the learner's utterance up until the point where the error has occurred, and exaggerates the word which has preceded the error with a rising intonation.
S: Demain, je vais aller à le supermarché.
T: Je vais aller...
S: Je vais aller au supermarché. (p. 295)
A second type is rephrasing a question. This can be used when a student fails to answer or answers incorrectly without confidence. Generally, the rephrased question is a reduced form of the original.
T: Warum ist er denn so spät nach Hause gekommen? [Why did he come home so late?]
S: Uh...(hesitates)
T: Warum kommt er spät? [Why is he late?] (p. 296)
Cueing is another useful feedback tool that can be employed when a student stumbles during an answer or makes an obvious error. The teacher then offers the student options to fill-in the missing element or repair the error.
T: When did you come to this part of the United States?
S: I...I...(hesitates over verb form)
T: Come, came, have come...
S: I came last year. (p. 296)
An offshoot of cueing is to rephrase a question when a student responds with a correct form but an inappropriate response. Using this technique, the student is given a chance to hear the question again, and obtain new information enabling him or her to give an appropriate response.
T: When are you leaving for vacation?
S: I am going to Florida.
T: Oh that's nice! But when are you leaving? Monday, Tuesday...?
S: I am leaving on Sunday. (p. 297)
The teacher may wish to explain a key word as a means of providing feedback to clear up confusion or apparent confusion on the part of the student. The teacher can write an explanation on the board, use pointing techniques, or make gestures to enlighten the student.
T: D'où viens-tu?
S: (No response)
T: (Writes d'où on the board)
S: Oh! Je viens du Kentucky. (p. 296)
There are times when a teacher may not comprehend a student's utterance, or the pronunciation of word is so poor that teacher wishes to model it. Through questioning, the teacher is able to employ a more subtle way to discover, or model the word.
S: I would like to study (incomprehensible).
T: Oh, would you like to study that?
S: I like to help people.
T: How do you think that will help them?
S: If I help them, they can see better.
T: Yes, being an optometrist is a good choice. (p. 296)
Yet another way a teacher can aid the student in self-correction, is by providing an answer to the question that was asked. This provides the student with a model of a correct structure, and still allows the student to come up with his or her own response.
T: Qu'est-ce que tu vas faire ce week-end?
S: Uh, j'aller...(hesitates)
T: Moi, je vais voir un film avec un ami.
S: Je vais au restaurant avec mes amis. (p. 297)
The last technique provided by Omaggio concerning self-correction is repetition of a student's answer, but with a corrected form. The original question or a similar form of the original should follow this to assess the student's comprehension of the error, and to allow the student a chance to self-correct.
T: Avez-vous des disques de rock?
S: Non, je n'ai pas des disques.
T: Oh, tu n'as pas de disques. As-tu des cassettes?
S: Non je n'ai pas de cassettes. (p. 297)
Omaggio also offers a couple of techniques specifically for peer correction. Peer correction is especially important because it takes some of the focus off of the teacher, and it has been shown to be effective (Bruton & Samuda, 1980; Porter, 1986). The teacher can provide students with appropriate interview questions written on cards; then have the students interview one another. The interviewee is allowed to view the cards and assess the interviewer, making sure the questions were asked using the correct forms. Also, the teacher can encourage the students to provide corrective feedback during structured exercises simply by asking the class for help when a speaker stumbles or is stuck and then praising any effort to assist the speaker (even if the provision was faulty). If no one corrects the error, then the teacher can provide the correction.
The last and least effective way to address errors is for the teacher to provide the corrections. Omaggio shows primarily two ways to do this. First, the teacher can supply the correct answer. This should be done only when time simply does not permit using other methods, when the frequency of errors within a particular utterance are so prevalent that comprehension is impossible, or when using drills. The other technique that teachers can use is paraphrasing.
S: Nous parlons le français en classe.
T: Nous parlons français en classe. (p. 297-298)
Omaggio warns that this technique may not be effective, especially if the teacher does not reassess the student's comprehension to see if he or she has realized that the response has been corrected by the teacher. Students who have confidence with their own self-correction techniques will probably be the only ones who benefit from this kind of correction.
Conclusion
Certainly, research of error correction techniques and strategies has not been exhausted. There is a significant need for classroom research, in particular. One specific area that warrants much more investigation is peer correction techniques and strategies.
In short, errors are inevitable in the language classroom, but they should be addressed in a rational and consistent manner. By developing criteria, and employing some of the aforementioned techniques, language teachers can discover what kinds of corrective techniques best suit their particular students.
References
Allwright, R. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 235-243. Reprinted in E. M. Hatch (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Brown, J. (1983). An exploration of the morpheme-group interactions. In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long & S. Peck (Eds.), Studies in second language acquisition: Series on issues in second language research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bruton, A. & Samuda, V. (1980). Learner and teacher roles in the treatment of oral errors in group work. RELC Journal, 11, 49-63.
Burt, M. & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.
Carroll, S., Roberge, Y. & Swain, M. (1992). The role of feedback in adult second language acquisition: Error correction and morphological generalizations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 173-198.
Cathcart, R. & Olsen, J. (1976). Teachers' and students' preferences for correction of classroom errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (Eds.). On TESOL '76. Washington, DC: TESOL, 41-53.
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second-language skills: Theory to practice. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chenoweth, N., Day, R., Chun, A., & Luppescu, S. (1983). Attitudes and preferences of nonnative speakers to corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
Corder, S.(1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 4, 161-169.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974a). You can't learn without goofing. In J. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974b). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53. Reprinted in E. M. Hatch (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Hendrickson, J. (1979). Evaluating spontaneous communication through systematic error analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 12, 357-364.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme accuracy order of learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 26(1), 125-135. Reprinted in Hatch, E. M. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Omaggio, A. C. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task centered discussion. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schmidt, R. & Frota, N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Stokes, A. (1975). Error and teacher-student interaction. In R. L. Allwright (Ed.), Working papers: Language teaching classroom research. Essex: University of Essex, Department of Languages and Linguistics.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1988). Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom. Applied Pyscholinguistics, 9, 237-246.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. (1989). Feedback for language transfer errors: The Garden Path Technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 385-395.
Trahey, M. & White, L. (1993). Positive Evidence and Preemption. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 181-204.
Vigil, N. & Oller, J. (1976). Rule fossilization: A tentative model. Language Learning, 26, 281-295.
Walz, J. (1982). Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. In Language in education: Theory and practice series, 50. Washington D. C.
White, L. (1991a). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133-161.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. & Ranta, L. (1991).