Corrective Feedback and Classroom Implications

Zeineb Haider, Libya

Zeineb Haider comes from Libya. She is a graduate student from UTSA. She earned an MA in TESOL on Dec/2012. She is interested in the field of teaching English to young learners. E-mail: zhaider410@yahoo.co.uk

Menu

Introduction
Background
Issues related to corrective feedback
Classroom implications
Examples
References

Introduction

The role of corrective feedback in second language acquisition is a controversial topic in the literature and in the classroom. The matter of how we, as language teachers, deal with errors is fundamental to achieving the goal of student progression in the voyage from one end of the interlanguage spectrum to the other. Too much correction can lead to demoralization, fear, or apathy. On the other hand, insufficient correction dilutes learning the correct forms of the language (Brown, 2007, p. 347). It is important to note that mistakes are not necessarily “bad.”

They are an indication that the students are attending to the matter of language learning, and have the potential to progress. Researchers have a variety of opinions on the most successful and effective strategy or technique of error correction (Brown, 2007, p. 348). I will present the most prominent hypotheses and then address some of the issues related to corrective feedback.

Background

Krashen, the father of the input hypothesis (1985), states clearly, “error correction is a serious mistake and could be harmful.” ( Doughty, 1998) In other words, he does not believe in any benefit from corrective feedback. Comprehensible input, for Krashen, is the driving mechanism behind second language acquisition. Krashen views corrective feedback as harmful because, according to his view, it interrupts the flow of discourse that is mainly the source of comprehensible input (Brown,1994). On the other hand, according to Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996), different types of corrective feedback (recasts, repetition) provide learners with negative evidence that in turn facilitates language development ( Doughty, 1998, p.269). He views corrective feedback as a sign for language learning and development. Schmidt (1990) proposed the Noticing Hypothesis. Attention is required for learning to occur; second language learners ideally notice details and differences between the target language and their production or knowledge of the target language ( Ortega, 2009, p. 63). Thus, greater attention can facilitate increased learning and results in learners noticing their errors; this gives them the chance to self-correct.

Issues related to corrective feedback

I now turn to several issues related to corrective feedback :

The first issue is, as language teachers, we need to make a decision about our objectives/ outcomes of classroom activities. If our goal is accuracy, for example, drilling a grammatical structure (form), then corrective feedback is needed. On the other hand, if our objective is to develop fluency, for example, in a communicative task, then little correction is needed at this time ( Brown, 1994.) However, Ellis states that as language teachers, we should provide our learners with corrective feedback during fluency and accuracy classroom activities ( Ellis,2008, p. 120).

A second issue concerns the learner uptake which was defined (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) as

“a student’s utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback, uptake that results in repair of the error or uptake that results in an utterance that still needs repair” (Brown, 2007).That means the effectiveness of different corrective feedback strategies is determined by uptake and what kind of uptake. A third issue/ concern is to know who will do the correcting. There are three options; either by the teacher, the learner him/ herself who self-corrects, or via peer correction. Teachers are often advised to correct the learners’ errors to confirm what is correct, then give the student an opportunity to self correct and draw his/ her attention to what is correct. Students will also spontaneously correct each other in class. ( Ellis, 2008). As I have mentioned research is not conclusive on one effective corrective feedback strategy. Much research has been conducted on which strategy or method works best and is most successful with learners.

Lyster (1997) identified six types of corrective feedback :

1. Clarification request: the teacher makes it clear to the learner that she has not understood the message and that a repetition or a reformation is required, for example: pardon me?
2. Repetition: the teacher repeats the student’s utterance with adjusted intonation to highlight the error for the student, for example: he goed?
3. Metalingustic: feedback: the teacher provides the learner with detailed information about the error, yet without giving out the correct answer, for example: “do we say goed in English?” It provides the learner with negative evidence.
4. Elicitation: The teacher tries to prompt the correct answer from the student by asking questions; this helps the learner to self correct,” how do we say that in English?”
5. Explicit correction: The teacher straight away corrects the error indicating to student what he/ she said was incorrect.
6. Recasts: the teacher corrects the utterance or parts of the student’s utterance. Recasts have been a fruitful area of research.

We will now look at two different studies that suggest recast is an effective strategy of corrective feedback:

In the Lyster and Ranta (1997) study : teachers preferred recasts to correct their students’ errors. Students were able to correct themselves; this indicates a level of engagement that is a result of the negotiation of form or the students’ responses to their incorrect language. (Ortega,2009,p. 74).

The Doughty and Valera (1998) study showed that where the teacher depended on recasts as her corrective feedback strategy, her learners also showed clear improvement.( Ortega,2009,p. 74).

In conclusion, to be able to confidently approach the important issue of error correction in the ESL classroom, it is necessary to understand both the theoretical basis of how language works as well as the evidence of practical studies which deal with the “real world.” Thus the teacher is armed with a wide variety of tools to see what works best in his/her individual situation .

Classroom implications

It is important for us, as teachers, to keep in mind that adult and young learners use different strategies to learn a second language. Neurobiology makes a clear cut distinction between adult and young learners based in changes in the plasticity of the brain, and development of structures underlying language learning ( Lightbown & Spada,2006).

One of the hypotheses that is linked to age differences and SLA is The Critical Period Hypothesis. Lenneberg (1967) refers to the idea that the ability to acquire language is related to aging and there is an ideal period of time to attain a native speaker quality language, after which it is no longer possible to learn a second language in the same way (Ortega, 2009, p .12).

I will first present some general thoughts on error-management, and then deal with prepubescentand post-pubescent learners. It is clear that learning cannot progress without error correction. Errors occur in all areas of language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) as well a grammar. We need to try out different corrective feedback strategies to see which one/ ones work well with our learners, globally and individually. I will be focusing upon speaking errors (pronunciation) and grammatical errors. As an example, in a grammar class, I would model a given form, and have the learners use this form in different ways. If errors occur, I would employ elicitation or repetition. Pronunciation error corrections depend on the amount of deviation and degree of comprehensibility. Also, when errors occur throughout the sentence, to help the student without overwhelming him/her, correcting key words rather than everything may be most helpful. My corrective feedback strategy would differ depending on my students’ ages and proficiency level. Also I would focus on correcting grammatical errors since they are learning a new language they should know the grammar rules and how to make correct grammatical structures. Teachers should encourage their students to take risks with the language and make errors as they develop their steps in learning the L2. Lastly, I will present some practical ideas for the two different age groups.

Examples

6th grade learners at the intermediate level

I would recommend using repetitions, for example: if my learners make a grammatical error in their utterance, then I would indicate it with high or low intonation. This is a helpful strategy where learners can self correct by thinking through what is incorrect about their language. Also, I would recommend being positive, since they are young learners; they could be shy or embarrassed in front of their peers. I would praise them and encourage them to prompt the correct answer, even if they made an error. I would say “ getting closer, great job!” This simple technique would motivate them and lower their affective filter, encourage them to take risks and have less inhibition to correct themselves in front of their peers.

Adults at the beginning level of proficiency

I would use elicitation, where I prompt the correct answer by asking them questions.

It triggers the learners to self repair their incorrect utterance and gives them an opportunity to use the language and correct themselves. I may use grammatical terminology to help them identify their error, for example I would say something like “ you only have only one error,” “what’s the verb, ” or “ is it a, an or the? ” This would support my students to not be embarrassed and inhibited when they make an error; instead it will open the door of self correction and using the second language.

To sum up, as language teachers we need to know our learners are expected to make errors which signal they are acquiring language. Also, our learners are waiting for corrective feedback which is provided in a positive, encouraging way. Using different corrective feedback strategies can be challenging, to treat errors, how to deal with them or to ignore them are key decisions to language progression. The scope of knowledge which comes from understanding the theoretical basis of learning as well as the experience derived from the classroom are invaluable in providing the confidence needed to motivate English language learners to achieve competence of our tongue.

References

Brown, D & Abeywickrama, P. (2007) .Language assessment principles and classroom Practices Pearson Education, pp 347-348.

Brown,H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching) 3rd ed. Eaglewood cliffs, NJ: Preatice Hall, pp.150-164.

Doughty, C. & Varela, E. (1998). “Communicative focus on form”. En C. Doughty & J. William (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 269.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 120.

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N,. (2006). How languages are learned 3rd ed. Oxford university press, p.38-47.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Studies in second language acquisition, 19. (pp.37-99).

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education, p 12, 63, 74.

Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.