May 2008, Volume 6, No.5 (Serial No.56)
US -China Foreign Language, ISSN1539-8080, US A
To correct or to ignore? WEI Li-qiu (Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Hechi University, Yizhou 546300, China)
Abstract: The correction of language learners’errors has been a controversial issue in the world of second language acquisition. This article starts with error analysis to reveal the multi-sources characteristic of errors, then proceeds to some empirical studies on the effects of error correction in students’written work to show the complexity and variety of correcting strategies, and finally addresses some practical implications. Key words: learners’errors; error correcting strategies; error analysis
1. Introduction The author is often made frustrated to some degree by some of the “persistent errors”her students make, but when asked “Do you believe that learners’errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits?”the author will give a definite “No”. As we know, error correction and feedback has been a very complicated and controversial issue which involves many factors such as learner’s age, personality characteristics, capabilities or level of performance, the task at hand, the focus of the activity, the modality in which the task is accomplished (i.e. oral or written production). Besides, theoretically, error analysis (EA) reveals to us that there are different types of learners’errors and these errors can be traced to different possible causes (interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, transfer of training, communicative strategies and cognitive and affective factors) and sources (linguistic, cognitive, affective, communicative). So learner differences (in belief, attitude, learning styles and preferences, etc.), the multi-sources and multi-types of errors determine the complexity and variety of correction and feedback strategies. Furthermore, the fact that many empirical studies on the effects of feedback and evaluation in second and foreign language writing have yielded contradictory results also shows that error correction is by no means a matter of correction and prevention of bad habit, but something far more complicated, which requires a combination of affective, cognitive and linguistic judgment. This paper starts with error analysis to reveal the multi-sources characteristic of errors, then proceeds to some empirical studies on the effects of error correction in students’written work, and finally addresses some practical implications.
2. Error analysis and possible sources of errors Error analysis (EA) refers to “the study and analysis of the errors made by second language learners” (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1998, p. 160). EA has language learners’language as its staring point of analysis. Since an ESL learner inevitably makes errors when she/he engages in language production activities, Brown (2000, p. 218) called error analysis as a study of learners’errors that “can be observed, analyzed, and classified to reveal something of the system operating within the leaner”. Richards, Platt and Platt (1998) indicated that the purposes WEI Li-qiu (1967- ), associate professor of Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Hechi University; research fields: English language teaching, second language acquisition. 25
To correct or to ignore?
of error analysis were: (1) to identify learners’learning strategies, (2) to perceive the causes of errors, and (3) to gain information of learners’common difficulties to help teachers’instruction and preparation of teaching materials. EA assumes that second language learners are bound to produce errors of various kinds as they struggle to get their meaning across, and a great many of the errors committed by second-language learners are systematic (Hadley, 2003). But where do these errors come from? What processes in language learning might be potential sources for errors production in speaking or in writing? According to Selinker (1974), the following five processes are believed to be central to second-language learning and acquisition: language transfer, or interference from the mother tongue, transfer -of-training, or errors due to the nature of the language-learning materials and approaches themselves, strategies of second language learning, or errors due to the learner’s own approach to the material to be learned, strategies of second language communication, or errors due to the way in which the learner attempts to communicate with native speakers in natural language use situations, and overgeneralization of target language rules, or errors due to the way in which the learner structures and reorganizes linguistic material. Therefore, in the light of the multi-sources of errors, EA follows the following procedures in analyzing learners’errors: (1) Select language samples from leaner corpus, including written data (homework) and oral data (recording and transcribing); (2) Identify errors: An Error or a mistake (a slip of tongue or of the pen)? Overt errors or covert errors? (3) Describe errors: Assign grammatical description to each error. For example, “She sleeping”(omission of “is”, an item that must appear in a well-formed utterance), “We didn’t went”(double markings: the use of a tense marker twice in one sentence). (4) Explain errors: Are the errors interlingual/ transfer errors or intralingual errors/ developmental errors? An attempt is made in this step to identify the psycholinguistic cause of errors. (5) Evaluating errors: Whether the error is a written one or an oral one? Global error (that may cause misunderstanding) or local error (that may not cause misunderstanding)? What criteria do judges use in evaluating learner errors? (6) Treatment of errors: To treat or ignore? What to treat? When and how and who to treat? To sum up, theoretically, EA reveals to us that most of learners’errors are systematic and can be traced to different sources; these errors are of significance to both teachers and learners; the variety of causes requires different correction and feedback strategies. Dealing with learners’errors involves a series of procedures and thus needs special efforts and tactics, never can a simple immediate correction prevent the formation of bad habit or eliminate errors. But how about the effects of correction and feedback in practice? Let’ s look at some empirical studies.
3. Some empirical evidence of the effects of grammar correction in students’written work In order to find efficient ways to deal with errors and improve learners’proficiency, many researchers and practitioners have done many experiments. And many studies indicate that error correction feedback was not helpful in either eliminating surface errors or encouraging high-level writing performance (Semke, 1984; Zamel, 1985; Cohen, 1987; Kepner, 1991, cited in Hadley, 2003). Truscott (1996) even argues that correcting students’ errors in writing is ineffective and should be abandoned. Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) suggest that comprehensive treatment and overt corrections of surface errors are probably not worth the trouble for teachers to make and that “less time-consuming methods of directing students attention to surface error may suffice”(p. 9). In
26
To correct or to ignore?
the following paragraph, let’s focus our attention on the famous study by Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986). The research that has been conducted on grammar correction in writing classes has largely consisted of comparative studies measuring the effectiveness of different types of feedback on students writing abilities. Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) used four kinds of grammar corrections on the surface errors of Japanese students and compared to see if they had an influence on the students’writings over time. These types were: (a) explicit correction, where errors were pointed out and correct forms offered; (b) marking mistakes with a yellow pen, without explanation; (c) a tally was kept in the margin of the number of errors per lines, and students were told to examine the line and find and correct the mistakes; (d) the use of a correction code which showed both the location and kind of errors. In all these cases, the students were told to write their essays again, making the necessary corrections. Results showed that at the end of the course, no significant differences existed between all the groups in terms of accuracy. Consequently, the authors concluded that comprehensive treatment and overt corrections of surface errors are probably not worth the trouble for teachers to make and that “less time-consuming methods of directing students’attention to surface error may suffice”(p. 9). Additional studies have shown that neither the use of direct or indirect techniques in correcting student errors has an influence on writing ability results. Moreover, making full (every error is corrected by the teacher) or selective (only one type of error is marked at a time) grammatical corrections is also not effective. There is no evidence of a delayed effect to grammatical corrections, that is to say, an effect which later shows up. The kind of instruction used by teachers in the study did not appear to have an impact on the results. Nor was the lack of benefits of grammatical correction dependent upon the students’gender, age, proficiency level, or educational background. The results of these studies should not be too surprising, as John Truscott (1996) has noted: Veteran teachers know there is little connection between correction and learning: Often a student will repeat the same mistake over and over again, even after being corrected many times. When this occurs, it is tempting for the teacher to say the student is not attentive or lazy; however, the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, even with successful students, argues against any such explanation. Rather the teacher should conclude that correction simply is not effective. (Truscott, 1996, p. 341)
My own experience also confirms this point. One typical, widespread error in my students’writings is with the “there be “structure. For example, they may write sentences like “There are many students fail the final exam.”“There were many visitors came to our school yesterday.”I put those sentences on the blackboard many times and asked the students to correct the errors and told them not to make the same mistakes again. But the fact is the same mistake comes back again and again in their writing when they are trying to us e this structure. It seems to me that explicit correction of grammar is invalid. In fact, numerous studies have revealed that grammar correction to second language writing errors is actually discouraging to many students, and even harmful to their writing ability (Semke, 1984; Kepner, 1991; Sheppard, 1992; Truscott, 1996). Generally those who do not receive grammar corrections have a more positive feeling about writing than those who did, wrote more, and with more complexity, than those who did receive grammar corrections. Moreover, the time spent by students and teachers on correcting grammatical errors causes needed attention to be sidetracked from other important elements of writing, like organization and logical development of content. So, theoretically and empirically, error correction and feedback is by no means a simple “Yes” or “No” question, but a complex decision-making process. The effects are determined and affected by many factors such as 27
To correct or to ignore?
learners’age, learning stage, learning styles and preferences, motivation, task types and the like. We need to take a scientific attitude towards learners’errors and be ready to choose an appropriate error correction strategy.
4. Some practical implications In practice, most second language teachers are still under the influence of contrastive analysis (CA) which ascribes most errors of L2 learners to interference of the first language and adopts a negative attitude towards errors and encourages immediate correction of errors. In other words, most teachers feel uncomfortable when seeing errors or mistakes in students’speaking and writing and cannot help correcting them immediately. This is not helpful for learner language development. We should have an insight into learners’errors and deal with them properly. Here are two practical suggestions. First, be tolerant of student’ s errors. Bear in mind that learner’s errors are a natural part of the learning process. They are of great significance to both teacher and student. As Murray (1999) put it, “Rather than being a source of frustration for teachers, such ‘errors’could have a positive and useful role to play— maybe not least in illuminating some of the blind spots and smoothing out some of the ingrained error that can exist in teaching.” Based on his study, Murray concludes that learners “persistent errors”have the following implications: (1) They clearly tell us that teaching is not the same as learning. (2) They give insight into the learning process, on both a common and an individual basis. (3) They can help us make more “learner coherent” decisions about priority and focus in a teaching programme; who wants to spend valuable time in “flogging dead horses”? (4) They perhaps carry a message about learners’natural, underlining language intelligence. (5) They can help us consider how to make the teaching process closer to the learning process. Under the guidance of error analysis and interlanguage, more and more teachers now have come to better accept errors as part of the learning process. But maybe this is not enough, we should think of much of what we call error as a natural part of language itself. In doing so, we will be able to take a more natural and humanistic attitude towards learners’errors and achieve a better result with what we do. Second, be familiar with and master as many error correction strategies as possible and choose an appropriate technique to deal with learner’s different types of errors. As discussed above, EA has identified different sources of errors and these multi-sources decide the complexity and variety of error correction and feedback strategies. However, EA also provides us with some basic general principles and rules to follow. That is, when we must correct students’errors, we should take the following factors into consideration: (1) When should errors be corrected? Immediately dealt with or delayed for a while? (2) Which errors should be corrected and which could be safely ignored? (3) How should errors be corrected? Direct (for example, direct interruption) or indirect (repetition, gesture or cues, for example)? (4) Who corrects? Teacher or peers or oneself? This is a decision making process for a teacher. Generally speaking, we should first decide the following points: Types of errors: A global error or local one? A mistake or an error? Focus of task: On fluency (meaning) or accuracy (form)? Choice of techniques: Which is the most appropriate technique for a particular student in a particular
28
To correct or to ignore?
situation (with regard to their age, personality characteristics, language level, etc.)? Effectiveness of correction: Which is better, self-/peer-, teacher -correction or a combination? Drawn from the above analysis, the general correction principles are as follows: Correction of a global error is preferable to a local one. If it is a global error that causes difficulty or misunderstanding, for example, “I like take taxi but my friend said so not that we should be late for school”, we should correct immediately, but a local/ minor error like “If I heard from him I will let you know”, we’d better ignore. Some of the conclusions reached by scholars such as Burt and Kiparsky (1974), Allwright (1975), Cohen (1975), Hendrickson (1979), Ervin (1981), and Walz (1982) (cited in Hadley, 2003) were that errors that interfere with comprehension of meaning as well as those that are: (1) of high frequency, (2) stigmatizing, or (3) the subject of pedagogical focus should receive the most attention. Walz adds that teachers should be sensitive to the needs and individual concerns of their students and their preferences for feed back. In a fluency-focused activity, indirect or delayed correction is preferable to direct or immediate correction. Harmer (2000) points out if the teacher corrects student’ s errors while he is involved in a passionate discussion, the effect might well be to destroy the conversational flow. Many empirical studies also indicate that constant interruption from the teacher will destroy the purpose of speaking activity and demotivate students to communicate in English and thus a “sorry class”or “silent class”will occur which we teachers never want. As far as writing is concerned, lexical correction is preferable to grammar correction. According to Morris (1999), grammar -based correction (picking up on minor slips or major errors in tenses, prepositions, pronoun use and so on) , by its nature, is retrospective— it looks back at something the students have already learned and reminds them that they have not yet got it right. Besides, it rarely works, as it is often a matter of time, rather than clarity of correction, which enables students to master a particular structure or concept. Lexical correction looks forward. It can encourage experimentation rather than reminding students of what they have failed to learn. It is content-focused, stressing the communicative aspect of the language. What writing teachers need to do is give priority to MEANING and MEANING RELATED problems, to make remarks about students' texts instead of just form. Semke (1984) has demonstrated that students who received comments from teachers only on content did much better and spent more time working on their essays than those who received criticism only on grammar. In short, teachers need to train themselves to set aside their red pens and examine ideas and see what students are trying to say instead of simply looking for grammatical errors. Learner-centered correction is preferable to teacher-centered correction. There is general agreement among researchers and practitioners that having the teacher straightforwardly correct every error on students’written work is not the most useful way of providing corrective feedback and that involving students in their own correction is helpful (Lalande, 1982; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, cited in Hadley, 2003), and that a combination of teacher-, peer -, and self-evaluation might yield the most successful results. But keep in mind that lower -level students may not be able to find out their own errors and correct them, whereas students at higher levels of proficiency may be able to do better. Therefore, if we adopt a learner-centered error correction, we should consider students’proficiency level and then group students in an appropriate way to live up to their full potential. To conclude, error correc tion and feedback strategies may differ in terms of learners’level of performance, their different learning styles and preferences, the task at hand, the focus of the activity. Furthermore, written errors and oral errors reflect different processing strategies and thus require different treatment. Still, feedback given on written work is usually more private than that given during oral activities and thus might be more extensive. For 29
To correct or to ignore?
these and other reasons error correction policies need to be flexible. In order to avoid the very demotivating effect of over-correction, as with all types of correction, the teacher has to achieve a balance between being accurate and truthful on the one hand and treating students sensitively and sympathetically on the other. Only by doing so can we help learners improve their learning. References: Brown, D. 2000. Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Hadley, A. O. 2003. Teaching language in context. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Harmer, J. 2000. How to teach English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Kepner, C. G. 1991. An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313. Morris, A. 1999. Feedback: Positively correct. Modern English Teacher, 8(4), 65-66. Murray, S. 1999. Correct me if I’m wrong. Modern English Teacher, 8(3), 43-47. Murray, S. 1999. Cuckoos in the nest. Modern English Teacher, 8(2), 64-66. Richardes, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. 1998. Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Addison Wesley Longman China Limited. Selinker, L. 1974. Interlanguage. In: J. Schumann & N. Stenson. (Eds.), New frontiers in second language learning. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse. Semke, H.D. 1984. Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals, 17, 195-202. Sheppard, K. 1992. Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110. Truscott, John. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
(Edited by Robert and Stella)
30