Oral Error Correction for Non-Native Speakers of English - Essay Example

? Languages are the medium by which people are able to express their views and ideas with each other. It forms the basis of communication and thus helps to bring people together. In order to understand the world as well as people belonging to different nations, it is essential that a person tries to learn a foreign language. The aim of teaching a foreign language is to assist learners to develop a foreign language competence that is as near to a native language user as possible. It is the job of teachers to try and understand the errors that a student makes and help him to overcome the same. Traditionally, errors have been seen as signs of failure in the language learning process (Hedge 2000; Johnson 2008). However, today attitudes towards errors are becoming less negative. The dominating constructive point of view in language learning, emphasizes errors’ role as a part of the language learning process (Bartram and Walton 1991). Already in the late 60s, Corder (1967) notes that errors are a significant part of language learning from two points of view. Firstly, errors give information to teachers about the learners’ language level, including what they have learned and what they still need to practice. Secondly, the nature of errors can enhance both teachers’ and learners’ understanding of the whole language learning process and what kind of knowledge is acquired first and what kind of structures are more difficult to comprehend. This paper will thus help to provide an insight into the role of errors and how they have been treated in language teaching through decades; the kind of corrective feedback that can take place in English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom; and finally, whether or not corrective feedback has an influence on the development of a learner learning a language. This paper will focus on defining terms concerning errors, corrective feedback and learner uptake. It will look at the most relevant studies that have been carried out in the field of teaching second language and error correction, including the methodologies used by teachers in classrooms with respect to error correction. According to James (1998) errors indicate a lack of knowledge in the learner’s foreign language competence. It is known as a phonological, grammatical or lexical error, or as an effect of the learner’s mother tongue (Chaudron 1986). Phonological errors are errors in pronunciation, stress, or intonation, grammatical errors to incorrect formulated sentences, phrases or words, and lexical errors refer to errors in word use, phrases or idioms (Chaudron 1986; Allwright and Bailey 1991). In totality, James (1998) explains that errors refer to a deviation of the grammatical accurate rules of a language system. Hendrickson (1978:387), on the other hand, defines error as ‘an utterance, form, or structure that a particular teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in real-life discourse’. According to Allwright and Bailey (1991:85) ‘an error is a form unwanted by the teacher’. In foreign language classrooms, the teacher is able to decide whether or not the students are making errors in oral pronunciation of words and phrases in the language that they are learning. However, errors that are made in the classroom are a result of different causes; Transfer of learners’ first language such as unfamiliar structures or pronunciation and unfamiliar words can all lead to erroneous utterances (Lyster and Ranta 1997). The definition mentioned previously seems to refer both to an incorrect form of an utterance that a native speaker of the language would not understand or accept as correct language use, and to an incorrect form of an specific utterance or answer that the teacher is looking for (Scrivener 1994). Errors mostly occur when the person learning the language is not able to for correct sentences or structure the use of grammar and phrase composition well. (Scrivener 1994). But despite good chances for a correct guess, the learner ends up doing incorrect hypotheses (Edge 1989). In this case the learner needs assistance in order to be able to produce a correct utterance. Definitions given by Hendrickson (1978), Edge (1989), Allwright and Bailey (1991) and James (1998) on errors, can be defined by their grammaticality and acceptability. Grammaticality is difficult to define because errors can be either overt or covert. Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005:56) explain that ‘an error is said to be overt if it can be detected by inspecting the sentence/utterance in which it occurs’. They continue that ‘an error is covert if it only becomes apparent when a larger stretch of the discourse is considered’ Ellis and Barkhuizen 2005:56). As far as acceptability is concerned, Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005: 56) add that ‘determining acceptability also involves attempting to identify a situational contest in which the utterance in question might fit’. A way of looking at errors is to make the difference between global and local errors (Burt and Kiparsky 1974, cited in Lennon 1991:183). According to Burt and Kiparsky (1974, cited in Lennon 1991:183) errors that significantly hinder communication, such as basic word order, sentence connectors, and other areas of syntax that are important to the organisation of ideas in an utterance, are global errors. They continue that, on the other hand, there are errors that are limited to a single part of the sentence, such as noun, verb infection, article and e.g. auxiliary errors. Burt and Kiparsky (1974, cited in Lennon 1991:183) label these errors as local errors. Chaudron (1977:31) defines error correction in the following way: ‘A conception of correction includes any reaction of the teachers, which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner’s utterance’. Furthermore, Long and Robinson (1988) write that it should be noted that feedback is designed to promote correction but is not the correction itself. In other words, the teacher should give the pupils information about the nature of errors, rather than just inform of the existence of errors or correct them her/himself. This is one methodology that is used in most classrooms in order to help the students overcome their mistakes in making sentences and speaking in foreign languages. Teachers should be able to explain to students with the help of a number of similar examples and sentences, where the error is occurring and how it should be avoided. According to Edge (1989) making errors is a part of learning, and giving corrective feedback is a part of teaching. Corrective feedback can focus on spoken and written errors or on receptive errors. Learners use feedback to enhance their competence in the foreign language and learn from their own errors. Thus, it can be assumed that corrective feedback plays an essential role in the foreign language learning process. In addition, in a formal classroom context corrective feedback is an important part of the classroom discourse. It is a part of a typical information exchange pattern in a language classroom, which according to Wells (1996) includes three stages: initiate , response and follow-up, and distinguishes classroom interaction from interaction outside the classroom (Nunan 1989). In general, corrective feedback refers to the feedback teachers give on errors but it does not include any implications for the actual learning process (Allwright and Bailey 1991; Sheen 2004). Teachers encounter many different errors in their daily work and they want to know how to treat them effectively. Several researchers have discussed corrective feedback. Despite this, there is still no exist an universal opinion about how these errors should be corrected, when these errors need to be corrected, which errors are vital enough to be corrected, how these errors should be corrected and finally, who is learned enough to be able to do the correcting (Hendrickson 1978; Chaudron 1988; Nunan 1989; Allwright and Bailey 1991; Scrivener 1994) Teachers need to remember that successful communication does not necessary require correct use of the foreign language (Thornbury 2005). Thus, correcting an error that a student makes depends completely upon the nature of the error made by him, itself. For example, if the goal of an activity is to practice a certain grammatical structure, i.e. the focus is strongly on accuracy, immediate correction can be seen as useful (Scrievener 1994). But in case the activity has its focus on practicing free communication, getting the message across, i.e. effective communication and fluency, errors can be ignored or treated at a later point during the lesson (Scrievener 1994). For example, the teacher may choose to pay less attention to errors in pronunciation if the aim of the activity is to learn and practice past tense in English (Allwright 1984). Corrective feedback can also be either explicit or implicit. According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) explicit feedback provides clear information about the error to the learner, its nature and also the correct form. Implicit feedback, on the other hand, is less clear in nature. Implicit feedback does not usually interrupt the flow of the conversation, but simply helps to correct the error. In sum, as far as error correction is concerned, teachers should first of all pay attention to the nature of the activity (accuracy vs. fluency), the nature of error (error vs. mistake), and understand if the correction take place immediately or at a later point during the lesson as well as which teacher is well equipped to correct the error. In a class full of people learning a language, some people are inevitably stronger than others, and thus it may be sometimes fruitful to ask for a correction from the pupils, if e.g. the learner who made the error is not able to correct the error/mistake himself (Bartram and Walton 1991). As a final point, teachers have to be aware of the different kind of ways how to actually give corrective feedback. In their study of corrective feedback and learner uptake both Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Panova and Lyster (2002) have categorised corrective feedback into seven different classes: recast, translation, clarification request, meta-linguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction and repetition. McDonough and McDonough (1997), on the other hand, give thirteen categories how corrective feedback in spoken performance can be given. The teacher can 1) identify the location of an error by prompt or non-word, such as oh, 2) give a location by repetition, 3) give a prompt, 4) ask a grammatical question, 5) ask a meaning-related question, 6) pretend to not to understand the utterance containing the error, 7) ask for a translation, 8) give a paraphrase, 9) ask for a paraphrase, 10) intervene immediately the error has occurred, 11) intervene after the end of the student’s turn to speak, 11) intervene at a topic shift boundary marker such as OK or 13) do a non-verbal reaction such as gesture. Malamah-Thomas (1987) gives additionally nine guidelines how the teacher can treat errors in the classroom. Malamah-Thomas’ (1987) suggestions are: 1) Teacher (T) gives correct answer (explicit correction), 2) T asks other student (S) ‘Is that right?’ or ‘What’s wrong?’, 3) T says ‘No/wrong’, 4) T says ‘Again/repeat’, 5) T mentions term e.g. tense, third person, or pronoun, 6) T repeats question with change of stress, 7) T repeats S’s answer up to point of error, 8) T makes physical gesture to indicate error, or 9) Teacher does not correct. Teachers should be able to handle all kinds of questions when it comes to the learners; this indirectly means that if someone is teaching others a foreign language, he or she should be able to answer all kinds of questions related to the language, its grammar as well as pronunciation. They should know the language inside out in a manner befitting confidence. When asked, they should be able to provide day to day examples to students in simple sentences so that the students then have a chance to elaborate and understand, and then move on to make their own structural compositions. Learner uptake refers to the learner’s reaction after teacher’s feedback (Allwright 1984). According to Allwright (1984) learner uptake can be seen to refer also to the learning process because it defines what learners’ claim and report they have learned. This is though relatively difficult to check. Lyster and Ranta (1997) describe learner uptake being the utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s corrective feedback and somehow can be seen to draw both to the feedback and to the first utterance said by the learner. Ellis et al (2001) remind though that learner uptake is an optional move in classroom interaction. This depends on the nature of the teacher’s corrective feedback. Furthermore, Ellis et al (2001) also point out that the distinction between uptake and learning is not unambiguous. As questioned above, it is difficult to determinate whether learning actually takes place after corrective feedback or not. Lyster and Ranta (1997) distinguish between uptake that results in repair (repetition, self-repair or peer-repair) of the error and uptake that still needs repair, i.e. needs-repair (acknowledge, different error, same error, hesitation). Finally, (Figure 1) provided by Lyster and Ranta (1997:44) summarizes the various processes of errors, corrective feedback and learner uptake in a foreign language classroom discussed above. (See Appendix 1). The teacher pays attention to correct pronunciation. For example, the teacher asks the learners how to pronounce certain words. Moreover, Lexical errors sometimes take place in free speech when the learners participate in conversations. They are related either to the learner’s lack of knowledge of the correct word or (s)he uses a word (s)he is familiar with in a wrong context. The teacher may also provide meta-linguistic feedback and ask for more clarification if s/he is uncertain if the learners have problems to understand certain vocabulary items. The objective of this paper, thus, was to be able to describe the ways in which teachers can correct oral errors of learners in an English language class. After understanding the gist of this paper, it is obvious that the main questions with respect to error correction are what to correct and how much of it to correct. Some teachers tend to have a habit of correcting every single mistake of their students; this embarrasses students and might not be taken well by them. Thus, the teacher firstly has to decide whether or not to correct every error a student makes. Then, (s)he needs to decide when and how it is appropriate to do it. This would suggest that selective error correction is a more effective technique than correcting all errors. But, the teacher’s reactions to errors are usually instant. If errors are very minor, their correction may frustrate the student and waste class time. Traditionally, it has been the teacher’s role to correct errors. Correcting errors of students’ may be a key point of foreign language teaching, but it is not enough for successful language learning. Thus, the teacher should lead the students to a point where they are able to recognise and correct their own errors and not provide explicit corrections. Self-correction may also be more effective for the pupils, since it assists them to improve their ability to recognize errors and avoid them. Finally, useful corrective feedback must be designed to increase the learner’s communicative competence. Since errors are very natural and may be made by anyone, it is the duty of those helping to correct that they do it well in a manner that these errors are not repeated by the students. References: Allwright, D. and Bailey, K.M. 1991. Focus on language classroom. Cambridge: CUP. Bartram, M. and Walton, R. 1991. Correction. Mistake management – A Positive Approach for Language Teachers. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Chaudron, C. 1977. A description model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning 27: 29–46. Chaudron, C. 1986. Teachers’ priorities in correcting learners’ errors in French immersion classes. In Day, R. R. (ed.) Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House, 209–236. Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: research and teaching and learning. New York: CUP. Corder, S.P. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Apllied Linguistics 5: 161–169. Edge, J. 1989. Mistakes and Correction. New York: Longman. Ellis, R. 1994. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. 2001. Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning 51 (2): 281–318. Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: OUP. Hendrickson, J.M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal 62 (8): 387-398. James, C. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman. Lennon, P. 1991. Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics 12 (2): 180-196. Long, M. and Robinson, P. 1988. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: CUP, 15-14. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 (1): 37-66. Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: OUP. McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. 1997. Research Methods for English Language Teachers. London: Arnold. Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. London: Prentice Hall. Panova, I. and Lyster, R. 2002. Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 36 (4): 573-595. Scrivener, J. 1994. Learning Teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: Heinemann. Sheen, Y. 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8 (3): 263–300. Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson/Longman. Wells, G. 1996. Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity 3 (2): 74–101. Appendix1: Figure 1 Model of the error treatment sequence (Lyster and Ranta 1997:44) Read More