6.2.3.4
Correct errors sensitively

It is always a quandary to know how much to correct in an oral class - if you intervene you might isolate your students and cow them into silence, but if you let too many errors go unchecked, are you simply compounding them? Brown (2001: 181) is rather reassuring on the latter point:

There is now enough research to tell us that (a) levels of accuracy maintained in unsupervised groups are as high as those in teacher-monitored whole-class work, and that (b) as much as you would like not to believe it, teachers' overt attempts to correct speech errors in the classroom have a negligible effect on students' subsequent performance.

So neither a high concentration of semi-unmonitored pair- or group-work, nor a policy of letting students have their head in order to foster fluency, is likely to have an adverse effect on elimination of errors.

In deciding your own policy, you should first be clear on the difference between an error and a mistake. The CEF defines the difference as follows:

Errors are due to an interlanguage, a simplified or distorted representation of the target competence. When the learner makes errors, his performance truly accords with his competence, which has developed characteristics different from those of L2 norms. Mistakes, on the other hand, occur in performance when a user / learner (as might be the case with a native speaker) does not bring his competences properly into action.

(CEF, 2002, section 6.5)

For further reading see section 13.4 of DELPHI Module 13, 'Approaches to Assessment', section 13.4.2 which, drawing on James (1998), further subdivides learner inaccuracy into:

  • lapses or slips;
  • first order mistakes (which the student can correct if prompted);
  • second order mistakes (which the student can correct if told where she/he has gone wrong);
  • errors (which require further learning before a correction can be understood).

(See also Module 13, section 13.5.3, on correcting spoken errors.)

Activity 6

Read through the following possible approaches that might be adopted when dealing with errors and mistakes, as suggested by the CEF (2002, section 6.5.2) and decide which you agree with and which you disagree with:

  1. All errors and mistakes should be immediately corrected by the teacher.
  2. Immediate peer-correction should be systematically encouraged to eradicate errors.
  3. All errors should be noted and corrected at a time when doing so does not interfere with communication (eg by separating the development of accuracy from the development of fluency).
  4. Errors should not be simply corrected, but analysed and explained at an appropriate time.
  5. Mistakes which are mere slips should be passed over, but systematic errors should be eradicated.
  6. Errors should be corrected only when they interfere with communication.
  7. Errors should be accepted as 'transitional interlanguage' and ignored.

My view is that a tutor should be lenient with clear mistakes but listen to the students themselves when it comes to correcting everything else. Nunan and Lamb (1996: 70-71) quote research which shows that students prefer, unsurprisingly, not to be told outright they are wrong, but to be invited to make the corrections for themselves. A way of dealing with this is to adopt a technique where you repeat their utterance but pause before the error, to see if the student can self-correct:

S: nous avons allé …

T: nous …

S: nous sommes allés.

In my experience, students appreciate being corrected (it is their perception that this is effective, whatever the research may suggest), with certain caveats. When I asked a group of undergraduates how and when they like to receive correction, their answers could be summarized as follows:

  1. Students want to be corrected by tutors - they feel badly done by if errors are ignored.
  2. Some like to see corrections written up on the board.
  3. Corrections in informal contexts (among peers, friends) are not always so welcome, although some respondents thought this was less confrontational.
  4. Having huge lists of misdemeanours read out after a presentation is too humiliating - some prefer privately given individual feedback.
  5. Learners do not like being interrupted, as it breaks the flow (although one or two said they preferred 'on-the-spot' correction, as after the event it is too late).
  6. The attitude of the corrector is everything - not patronizing or annoyed, but friendly and professional.
  7. Students like being praised for what they have done well, in addition to having their weak points highlighted.
  8. Sometimes simply repeating the phrase / word correctly is enough - it doesn't draw undue attention to the speaker, but gets the point across.
  9. Some mentioned the possibility of correcting errors at the end of a session, so that no single student is under the spot-light.

Further approaches include:

  • occasionally collecting common errors to present to the group, rather than individual ones;
  • prioritizing feedback and not trying to correct everything at once;
  • encouraging peer correction.

(For further reading on error correction, see Nunan and Lamb, 1996: 68-80).

Previous page navigation button.

Next page navigation button.

Index page navigation button.