After learning about different types of error correction, I realized that I usually use explicit and metalinguistic techniques. I am not sure implicit way of error correction is enough: Ss need to understand what they are saying.
I agree that the necessity of error correction depends on the goal of a particular activity.
1) Let's say, we're reading out loud as a whole class, and the goal is - understand main idea. So, it's, probably, not necessary to correct pronunciation errors at all: it would distract students' attention while they are trying to focus on the meaning. However, when we practice reading in the course of repeated reading, it is absolutely necessary to correct pronunciation errors.
2) I usually don't correct any pronunciation or grammar errors right away: I allow a student to finish, or I even allow the whole speaking activity to finish, and only after that I explicitly analyze all common errors. Metalinguistic awareness matters a lot here.
Comments
Anastassia, Thank you for sharing some of your decision-making around correcting learners' errors. I agree that being thougtful about error correction is incredily important. Understanding when learners are ready to be corrected as well as when they might benefit from correction is essential. However, I should add that it's not always easy to figure this out.
I think we all know that stopping a learner to offer correction while he or she is trying to communicate something, is not a useful practice. I like your idea to make note of common issues and plan mini lessons accordingly.
Here is a tip I have found helpful. I heard this idea during a training years ago. The trainer suggested that after the student is finished sharing his or her idea, the teacher can say, "I understood everything you said. This is how we usually say that. ...." In this way, the teacher first affirms the learner's ability to communicate successfully and can then draw his or her attention to the specific issue.
There are times when we understand part of what a student says but maybe not the entire message. In this circumstance, it's useful to let the learner know what we understood and then ask for clarification for the part we did not get, e.g., "You said you talked to your neighbor yesterday about her schedule. What did your neighbor say about her work schedule?" Once again, we have the opportunity to affirm the student as well as identify something to work on.
Another technique that has been valuable to me when offering feedback on writing is to draw learners' attention to the specific issue but not provide the correction. Instead, I prompt the student by asking a question, e.g., Where do you need a comma in this sentence?". This strategy can work well when we are confident the learner has the knowledge to correct the mistake him- or herself.
One thing we all know is that making "mistakes" when learning a language is a quintessential aspect of the language acquisition process. As teachers, we can help learners understand this, too!
Thanks again, Anastassia! I hope other teachers will weigh in on this iissue that we all deal with every day in our interactions with learners.
Cheers, Susan Finn Miller
Moderator, English Language Acquisition
I have found that my traditional approach to error correction-- to only correct if communication is impaired or the "error" is far below the student's overall level of proficiency-- is being forced to changed as I guide students through TOEFL preparation. Many of them have worked with me for more than a year, so our interaction has had to adapt according to their goals. What I would let "slide" during their early learning now has to be explicitly addressed if they are to achieve the high scores needed for university admission. To avoid interrupting students, I record their speech throughout our sessions so we can refer back. I also take notes on errors, then address patterns using some examples from their performance. I incorporate mapping as a scaffold for the students and as an easy way for me to provide them with feedback. Above all, I find it is a lot harder to address grammar and phrase order during speaking, especially if the student's speech is peppered with interlanguage; however, these tend to be the areas of greatest need. Like many of you, I start with the strengths, then follow with no more than 3 areas of correction at one time.
Hello Adjua, Thank you for contributing to this discussion. Having students record themselves is a great way to raise their awareness of communication issues. You indicated that you "incorporate mapping as a scaffold for the students and as an easy way for me to provide them with feedback." I'm curious what this looks like. Can you say more?
Cheers, Susan Finn Miller
Moderator, English Language Acquisition CoP
For sure!
"Mapping" is much like using a graphic organizer. Students record only the keywords they read in texts, hear in recordings, or need to include in spoken responses. Unfortunately, they cannot use pre-made graphic organizers during the actual test, so it would not be a "best practice" to use them for test preparation. Instead, learners are taught how to visually arrange their notes in a way that makes them more useful tools for answering questions and developing spoken and written responses. For example, we would expect the map a student made for a historical narrative to be different than one made for a text that compares two animals. In such cases, I instruct my students to make timelines for narratives but use two columns for comparative texts.
We do the same thing for speaking tasks. Students only have 15 seconds to prepare for independent speaking tasks (about 25 if you include the recorded prompt), so they really only have enough time to jot a down few words. If they can perceive the type of oral text they are being asked to create, such as a description versus an opinion, then they can create the corresponding map to arrange the keywords needed of their response. Many students begin their TOEFL/IELTS preparation by memorizing parts of their spoken responses but eventually discover that this approach can have a ceiling effect on their scores. There is an assumption that their is one type of answer with a few moving parts. By drawing connections between the keywords in prompts and the maps, it is easier for students to "see" what should be included in their responses.
By the same token, I should be able to make my own map from their response. If they are using appropriate transition words, I will know which type of text they are creating and how well it corresponds to the prompt. When I share maps as feedback, I usually include the transition words as labels for the arrows between keywords.
Here is an example I made for one of my students who is trying to increase her score from a 24 to a 26 (out of 30). This score is required to transfer her nursing license to the United States.
Talk about a game, sport, or other group activity that you played in your childhood. What did you like or dislike about it, and why?