DeMott: “To Err is Humane”
The implication of the developmental use of interlanguage by students would no doubt produce errors in language acquisition. Approaches to errors are explored by many practitioners, John Bitchener of AUT University (New Zealand), however, can be seen as a seminal writer on the topic. While looking at ELL development, Bitchener reflects upon the effectiveness of correcting the errors made by language learners, at least in the form of written corrective feedback (sometimes referred to as “written CF” or “WCF”), noting the cannon of research by Manchon (2011,2012), Ashwell (2000), Fathman and Whalley (1990), Ferris (1997), and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who all conceded that L2 writers “using the CF they had received, were able to improve the accuracy of a particular written text.” Bitchener’s contention with this conclusion, however, can be seen in his statement that:“revision of a text is not necessarily evidence of learning. Evidence of learning can only be seen when accuracy in one or more new texts is compared with inaccuracy in an earlier text,” as explained by Polio, Fleck, and Leder (1998), and Truscott and Hsu (2008). Bitchener continues to ask the basic question of whether different types of WCF are more effective than others, noting the categories of feedback: direct, indirect and metalinguistic, and assigning usages for each. Direct CF, concerned with correcting form and structure, is seen as “more helpful to learners because it is clear, it offers information on how to resolve more complex errors, it provides “explicit feedback on hypotheses that are tested by learners, and it is immediate. (Bitchener, 2012, p. 355-357) Indirect CF, on the other hand, indicates the location of an error, leaving the solution to the error to the learner. Although not possessing the clarity of message inherent in Direct CF, the cognitive process falls on the learners shoulders. Meta linguistic feedback provides examples and explanations of “accurate target-like uses of linguistic
9