The Psychological Correction of Error in Second Language Classroom - Essay Example

The Psychological Effect of Error Correction in Second Language Classroom Introduction A case in point which demonstrates several risks and opportunities in connection with error correction is its psychological effect. Some scholars, such as Krashen (1981), place emphasis on the psychological effect of both positive feedback and negative feedback on learners who make errors in L2 classrooms. These scholars underline the need to free learners from the fear of perceiving corrections or errors as ‘inadequacies’ or ‘failures’. They claim that students should be psychologically positive and interested in order for second language acquisition to occur ‘naturally’ and successfully. Thus, error correction is not simply of realistic value, but is also a fiercely debated subject matter in the literature on second language acquisition. This essay is structured in the following manner. First is a brief review of related literature or empirical findings on the psychological effect of positive feedback and negative feedback on errors in L2 classrooms, stressing the important transition from a behaviouristic method to a cognitive perspective of error correction. Second is an evaluation of the connection between the related literature and error correction practice in actual L2 classroom setting. This part analyses a video showing an actual language teaching and discussion among students with different cultural backgrounds. Third is a summary of the entire discussion and findings of this essay. Literature Review Allowing errors to remain uncorrected is usually understood as being disregarded by the teacher, which hence results in some form of discouragement on the student’s part. Nevertheless, another negative possibility of allowing incorrect ideas or terms remain uncorrected appears to be that “the detective language might serve as an input model and be acquired by other students in the class” (Joetze, 2011, 8) since the other students suppose the spoken idea or term was right. Furthermore, advocates of the auto-input theory state that if a student speaks flawed expression which is allowed to stay uncorrected, simultaneously this utterance functions as another input to the student who committed a mistake (Joetze, 2011). The difficulty which is discerned primarily by educators is “that some learners may even modify their existing correct hypotheses to include incorrect forms, in order to conform with their classmates’ uncorrected output” (Joetze, 2011, 8). It is important to mention that each of the identified risks of ignoring or allowing students’ errors to remain uncorrected can also be viewed as aspects that support correction. Until the 1960’s theories of language learning were profoundly shaped by behaviouristic perspectives. During this period second-language acquisition (SLA) research had not attracted significant attention (Mishra, 2005, 49). Errors and routines were major issues of this perspective of language learning. Behaviouristic perspectives gave explanation of the reason L2 students commit mistakes. Behaviourists view errors as objectionable. Errors were denounced to become routines and, thus, these were demanded to be strictly avoided. Errors were believed to arise because of non-learning (Mishra, 2005). Hence, there was a demand to foresee errors and to avoid their occurrence. Therefore, behaviouristic perspective formed the groundwork for a highly rigid approach towards errors. On the other hand, Noam Chomsky refuted the behaviourist perspective of language learning. He claimed “Language is not a habit structure. Ordinary linguistic behaviour characteristically involves innovation, formation of new sentences and patterns in accordance with rules of great abstractness and intricacy” (Baron, 2006, 10). He challenged the basic idea of the behaviourist theory that language learning is comparable to any other form of learning and it is under a similar principle of association, reinforcement, stimulus and response. Within Chomsky’s perspective, which is eventually referred to as the ‘cognitive code theory’, errors no longer stimulate intense indifference as these were understood or approved as creative functions in unfamiliar and sometimes unexpected circumstances (Simpson, 2011, 187). Hence there was a transformation in the approach towards errors from rigidly negative to practically positive. Grittner (1969 as cited in Mishra, 2005, 51) reported that the negative effect of excessive correction due particularly on an unjustifiably strict approach of the teachers towards errors may result in reticence of the language users. Valdman (1975 as cited in Mishra, 2005, 51) found that greater acceptance of the learners’ mistakes could encourage the learners to become more self-assured in their language use. The study of Walker (1973 as cited in Mishra, 2005, 51) on the opinion of students showed that they dislike correction that focused on revealing all errors and thus made insignificant pieces of language more essential in their minds than the very crucial global perspective of the language. All these studies contributed considerably to the transformation of teachers’ approaches towards errors of L2 students in communication. Psychology in its involvement in learning on the whole has placed emphasis on the functions of individual self-recognition for learners, the appropriate form of moral assistance from seniors and teachers, teamwork and motivation in their task particularly to surmount challenging tasks, acceptance and empathy for their failures, and of recognition of positive feedback for their accomplishments (Baron, 2006). Such findings have provided the field of language learning essential knowledge particularly in connection with L2 learners who quite frequently make mistakes while communicating. Within psychology, creative language use in circumstances also eventually gain recognition in spite of errors (Mishra, 2005). According to Baron (2006), role of interest, encouragement, motivation, and so on, also has been emphasised recently. The attitude of learners towards the teacher and the classroom is of high value to identify whether s/he will learn or not. According to Joetze (2011), the approaches educators habitually display towards errors in learners’ communication generate an unfavourable impact on the learners’ attention to language learning. Embarrassing and criticising feedback or language of their teachers stimulate in the learners a form of unfavourable attitude towards the English instructor and his/her teaching methods. Krashen (1981) emphasises the importance of recognising this psychological reality in order to strengthen the appropriate positive student approach towards the instructor and his/her teaching. As argued by Krashen (1981, p. 23): The student who feels at ease in the classroom and likes the teacher may seek out intake by volunteering [He may be a ‘high input generator’, Seliger, 1977] and may be more accepting of the teacher as a source of intake. Positive attitudes and/or integrative motivation, and for this reason may also relate to acquisition. In addition, we would expect students with such attitudes to apply themselves more, resulting in more learning. Such psychological facts also facilitate change in the routinely strict and inflexible approach towards errors. Teachers have eventually realised that punishment and fear discourage learners from attending their classes (Krashen, 1981). Furthermore, according to Simpson (2011), it was eventually understood that motivation serves a rewarding function in bringing about any learning as a whole and second language learning specifically. Classroom Observation Summary So as to demonstrate the actual psychological effect of error correction in language teaching a video showing actual English instruction and classroom discussion has been analysed. The classroom teacher, in general, accepts and tolerates her students’ errors by correcting them appropriately and considerately. For example, in discussing the life of comedian Lenny Henry, the teacher enthusiastically asks her students to guess the likes and dislikes of the comedian based on the show they have watched the previous day. Because of the interest shown by the teacher in her students’ ideas the students started giving their own views about Lenny Henry’s favourites and dislikes willingly. It is shown in the oral discussion that the students are really not yet proficient with the English language, and so the teacher appropriately corrects them. The following conversations show how appropriately the teacher handles error correction to elicit the proper psychological response: Conversation 1 Teacher: Okay, can you please guess any likes or dislikes by Lenny Henry. Female student (1): he likes not so formal clothes Teacher: okay. With not so formal clothes we mean like informal or casual, right? Right. Thank you. Others please. Female student (2): he does not like the way his mother tells him about how to treat girls Teacher: yes, yes. So he does not like his mother’s advice. Male student (1): he does not like serious stuffs. Teacher: oh yes. So let’s say he does not like very serious things. Conversation 2 Teacher: so Lenny Henry used a variety of verbs to express his likes and dislikes. Can you please find in the articles these different verbs that he used? You have 2-3 minutes to do this. Go. Teacher: [after 2-3 minutes] okay, so please tell me what you have found [and so the students answered] Teacher: okay, good, good. Now let’s put those verbs into a scale of intensity. Where do you think we should place ‘i’m very fond of’? Male student (2): in number 1. Teacher: okay. Good. But I think it is less intense so we put it in number 2. Okay? Male student (2) and the rest of the class: okay. As shown in the above conversations, the teacher uses affirmative expressions or words to correct her students’ mistakes. There are also obvious errors in the students’ pronunciation which the teacher handles quite considerately. She corrects pronunciation errors by encouraging her students to repeat sentences, phrases, and words until they get the correct accent. She recognises all correct utterances and gives them proper notice. Because of this proper approach to error correction the teacher is able to elicit favourable psychological responses from her students, shown in the students’ eagerness to take part in the discussion, the absence of fear that their errors will be criticised, and the presence of motivation or encouragement to contribute to the knowledge being imparted. Evaluation In the video, when students commit mistakes during communication, the teacher generally invokes psychologically positive reaction. This psychological outcome can be applied in various ways as regards to the error correction technique. Within a cognitive point of view, Barbetta and colleagues (1993 as cited in Rathvon, 2008, 184), for instance, showed that learners learned, sustained, and simplified sight-word reading when they recite repeatedly the right term that was given by the teacher after a mistake when evaluated against merely dealing with the right term without reciting it repeatedly. Barbetta and colleagues (1993 as cited in Rathvon, 2008, 184), in another research, reported that sight-word reading was greater in accuracy when learners were obliged to reiterate the entire term after an error, rather than reiterating the first sounds of the entire terms. The teacher in the video attests to the usefulness of asking the students to repeat the correct words, phrases, or sentences repeatedly after an error. In this manner the teacher exudes a form of concern over or interest in her students’ progress. As can be seen in the video, the students positively respond to the teacher’s tolerance-inclined approach to error correction by obeying all the teacher’s instructions and being attentive to the discussion. Their errors in pronunciation, word choice, and grammar construction are addressed by the teacher acceptingly and considerately which, as a result, encourages self-confidence among the students. Hence, it seems that error correction can be a beneficial learning and teaching technique when combined with proper psychological approach and repetition. Employing response repetition as an approach to error correction, Worsdell and colleagues (2005 as cited in Cipani, 2009, 116) discovered that when evaluated against single repetition of right terms, numerous repetitions of right terms led to greater mastery of collective words, more terms pronounced accurately, and stronger post-teaching retention. Furthermore, Worsdell and colleagues demonstrated that the method of multiple repetitions was more effective when it was determined by all erroneous responses rather than by a standard of every third erroneous answer (Cipani, 2009, 116). Moreover, Mishra (2005, 149) reported that the process of self-correction by learners after mistakes can reinforce learning when it is direct or instant. As shown in the video, by employing positive feedback, such as using encouraging words, the teacher can contribute to the formation of the needed form of foundation of self-assurance in the learner and encourage him/her to carry out more of communicative tasks with greater self-confidence. Learners eventually see their teacher as an individual who is truly concerned for their growth and development and who is truly eager to help and support them instead of overly stressing their mistakes and de-motivating them. Conclusions Having heard or observed a mistake or inaccuracy, the most important judgment the teacher has to make is whether to deal with it or not. It is somewhat obvious that most students prefer their errors to be corrected rather than left uncorrected. The classroom attitude and approaches of teachers with regard to this is also affected by definite teaching techniques. Several techniques suggest no immediate response whatsoever. Yet, there are instances when it is prudent for language instructors to respond analytically and think about the form of errors being created. Language teachers have several options to choose from, such as to address or to disregard, to address directly or to postpone, to allow other students to begin correction, or to verify the effectiveness of the correction technique. In conclusion, based on the observations, positive feedback on errors used by the teacher in the video, such as accepting and tolerance-inclined approaches to correction, response repetition, and immediate or direct correction, elicited positive responses from the students, such as eagerness to take part in the discussion, confidence in their answers, motivation to contribute, and the absence of fear of committing errors. It is thereby safe to assume that negative feedback on errors will produce negative responses from students, such as discouragement, lack of motivation, and fear. References Barbetta, P., Heron, T., & Heward, W. 1993. ‘Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities’. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 111-119. Baron, Katharina. 2006. Methods of Foreign Language Teaching in the 19th and 20th Century. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Cipani, Ennio. 2009. Practical Research Methods for Educators: Becoming an Evidence-Based Practitioner. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Grittner, F.M. 1969. Teaching Foreign Languages. New York: Harper & Row. Joetze, Steffi. 2011. Oral Error Treatment in the Second Language Classroom. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Krashen, Stephen. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. California: Pergamon Press. Mishra, Krushna Chandra. 2005. Correction of Errors in English: A Training Course for the Teachers of English as a Second Language. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. Rathvon, Natalie. 2008. Effective School Interventions: Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving Student Outcomes. New York: Guilford Press. Simpson, James. 2011. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Taylor & Francis. Valdman, A. 1975. Learner Systems and Error Analysis. In G.A. Jarvis (ed.) Perspectives: A New Freedom. Illinois: National Textbook Company. Walker, J. 1973. ‘Opinions of University Students about Language Teaching’. Foreign Language Annels. Worsdell, A.S., Iwata, B.A., Dozier, C.L., Johnson, A.D., Neidert, P.L., & Thomason, J.L. 2005. ‘Analysis of response repetition as an error-correction strategy during sight-word reading’. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, Vol. 38, pp. 511-527. Read More