Approaches to Error Correction in Language Teaching - Literature review Example

APPROACHES TO ERROR CORRECTION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING] Approaches to Error Correction in Language Teaching Language is extremely crucial for human interaction because it is used by people to express their feelings, thoughts and ideas. For instance, people express love, hatred and artistic satisfaction through language (Cook, 2008, p. 1). People also use language to pray, further their careers and plan their lives. It is imperative to note that some people are able to express themselves in more than one language. Those people who know another language have a greater chance of getting a job, acquiring education and even relocating to another country and interacting freely with people from other cultural backgrounds. Language is correlated to culture, and understanding a people’s language is a prerequisite to understanding their culture. A second language is very vital to the lives of many people because it affects their careers, identities and future lives. It is therefore, an important task when one engages in helping people to acquire a second language (Cook, 2008, p. 1). In fact, it would be very difficult for tourists to enjoy their tour in a foreign country, for instance, if they were unable to express themselves in the language that is commonly spoken in that language or if the tour guides in the foreign country did not have sufficient spoken and written knowledge on the tourists’ language. However, language teaching, especially second language teaching, is associated with errors among learners. This means that language teaching incorporates error correction. Various approaches to error correction in language teaching have been proposed by various scholars and researchers. Initially, attention was focused on the language that the learner produced and the technique of error analysis focused on the differences between the learner’s speech and that of the native speaker. Language teachers or instructors were interested to know how the learner’s language was like (Cook, 2008, p. 6). Naturally, it is very difficult for a foreigner to attain the same language proficiency as that of a native speaker. Therefore, this approach could not be effective in evaluating achievement of a language learner because it is not guaranteed that such learner can attain absolute proficiency in spoken or written language. It has been noted that second language learners do not achieve proficiency in language which can measure up with native-speaking individuals in terms of speaking and writing. One of the reasons why this phenomenon is varied is because of instructional issues (House, 2011, p. 61). During the 1950s and 1960s, the major concerns of language teaching were error prevention and error correction (Oladejo, 1993, p. 73). During that period, the audio-lingual approach was dominant in the foreign or second language learning. This dictated that a learner’s errors, which were normally detected in performance of language, had to be corrected comprehensively and immediately so as to prevent such errors from becoming part of the learner’s habit system. Instructors were responsible for the correction of errors and they were known not to tolerate errors (Oladejo, 1993, p. 73). The main fault with this approach is that it ignored the fact that most people learn through error. Concepts learnt through trial and error are normally conceptualised on a permanent basis. Towards 1970, after significant developments in the inter-language studies, errors were interpreted differently. The audio lingual approach was not so much supported anymore. Therefore, fluency was given priority over accuracy (Oladejo, 1993, p. 73). Later a communicative approach was targeted, whereby a learner was encouraged to communicate in the target language. This gave language learners an opportunity to focus on fluency more than accuracy, and consequently the few errors that could be made were somehow tolerated. In some cases, language learners were left to correct themselves or to be corrected by their colleagues and not tutors or teachers. Currently, language instructors or teachers view errors positively and communicative approach is prioritised, but still orientation to error correction is carried out on learners as the main feedback to them (Oladejo, 1993, p. 73). According to Stephen Pit Corder, learner errors should be taken as a proof that learners at any given point, in their second language development, possess a form of systemic linguistic competence (Tedick, 1998, p. 2). Therefore, learner errors should not be seen as a proof of incomplete learning. Instead, learner errors imply progress of a learner in the learning process. In addition, learners will not learn what they are not ready to learn. Through an “in-built syllabus” or an internally determined order, learners choose what linguistic items to learn, unlike following a syllabus developed externally by a teacher or syllabus writer (Tedick, 1998, p. 2). Therefore, it is not advisable to engage learners in what they have not chosen to learn. However, teaching is a process that is guided by set objectives through the syllabus and language teachers ought to do their part. As much as language learners are exposed to a variety of input, what they actually take in may not be the whole input. It is through this aspect that language teachers should ensure that they try their best to convert as much input into intake as possible. Transitional competence, which is all about the learner’s knowledge of the language presently, determines the errors in language learning (Tedick, 1998, p. 2). On the other hand, errors are a representation of the learner’s current transitional system while mistakes are a learner’s product of performance and are unsystematic (Block, 2003, p. 17). One of the approaches used in error correction in language learning is the communicative approach. This approach supports a functional and active use of language, especially English (House, 2011, p. 61). A learner ought to attain effective degrees of communicative competence. However, it should be noted that error correction is regarded a highly personal and complex issue. It is determined by factors such as the existing rapport between the learner and the instructor. Also, factors such as learning style, interpersonal relationships among learners, learning criteria established by the syllabus, aims of the task and assessment criteria and the learning situation, influence error correction (House, 2011, p. 61). The current level of language proficiency and previous learning experience, as well as, the age of the learner determines the approach of error correction that is to be adopted (House, 2011, p. 61). As far as error correction approaches are concerned, there are heavy corrector language teachers and non-corrector language teachers. A heavy corrector does not ignore mistakes made by learners. Such a language instructor corrects every error that language learners make, as soon as the errors are made. However, language is learnt systemically and cannot be practised. Out of class, people learn through trial and error. There has to be experimentation of what works and what does not (House, 2011, p. 61). Therefore, this approach ignores the role that errors make in enhancing learning. In the corrector approach, the instructor dominates the learning session. In fact, this tempers with what ideal learning is supposed to be because it converts learning into teaching. It also harms creativity because frequent correction implies that accuracy is the key to learning than being fluent and imaginative (House, 2011, p. 61). This is against the current approach to error correction in language learning where fluency is prioritised over accuracy. Thirdly, this approach makes a learner’s mind to be fixed on pre-set phrases; hence the learner is unable to produce new and original language. A learner whose language instructor is the corrector type, is likely to undergo externally, defined learning. On the other hand, the non-corrector approach involves trials to correct as little as possible and never interrupting students to correct errors. Language learners are allowed to express themselves in a foreign language without having to worry about mistakes (House, 2011, p. 61). This is not right because at some point, it is beneficial to correct language learners in form of feedback because feedback is crucial in learning, and error correction is a form of feedback. In addition, the non-corrector approach leads to learners’ negative feelings towards language learning because they are not corrected House, 2011, p. 62). It would be ideal for language teachers to let learners correct themselves from their own mistakes, or to let the learners to be corrected by their colleagues and only seek to correct as the last option. This is because self and peer correction are the best given that most people prefer correcting their own mistakes, rather than being corrected by others and this creates the most memorable experience for an individual. Also, when colleagues correct a learner, the whole class is involved collaboratively and teacher dependency is reduced. Feedback from peers is often interesting and learners who are corrected by colleagues tend to take the corrective feedback positively towards learning (House, 2011, p. 62). In addition, correction by others is crucial and cannot be ignored (John-Steiner, 1994, p. 92). Separately, according to Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000, p. 220), there are two approaches to error correction. These approaches are both discourse-based. First, in the interview analysis for correction of oral discourse, proposed by Wechsler, the instructor records an extended conversation with the learner and transcribes, exactly what the learner says in that conversation (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 220). The transcription then becomes the error correction material, whereby the learner reads over the transcript and with the instructor’s help, learns to correct errors. This focuses on inaccuracies that result from the meaning the learner seeks to express (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 220). This approach uses the language teacher as the reference point that the learners should utilise and this is against the requirements of the current approach to language learning that emphasises on fluency over accuracy. Secondly, in the reformulation approach, proposed by Cohen, the instructor picks a paragraph or longer text that has been written by the learner and rewrites it in his or her own language (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 220). The learner is then given a chance to compare the reformulated and the original version to evaluate whether the message has been preserved. When the learner discovers that reformulation does not preserve the message intended to be passed on in the original text, the meaning is negotiated and the instructor makes further changes till the learner agrees that the message is the same (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 220). The learner is then let to try and understand why some changes were made. In this approach, the language teacher is happens to be a reference point, but it should be remembered again that the learner may not be as proficient as the language teacher or a native speaker of the language. Some language teachers and scholars recommend that since students do not know when they are making errors, teachers should provide feedback to such learners so as to raise awareness among them. Therefore, errors should be corrected to enhance understanding in language learning. Errors that cause misunderstanding may be corrected at the time of production while other errors can be corrected later (Kelly, 2006). On the other hand, other scholars such as Long and Truscott are of the opinion that much corrective feedback is ineffective, erratic, ill-timed and ambiguous and even harmful. However, it is worthy to note that grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation errors affect the ability of learners to be understood (Kelly, 2006). However, from theory, it is established that Hendrickson framed various questions pertaining to error treatment in language learning. These issues include whether learner’s errors should be corrected and when they should be corrected (House, 2011, p. 61). Also, Hendrickson sought to find out the errors that should be corrected, by who and how they should be corrected. There seems to be varied opinions about the aforementioned questions. These opinions are normally based on the language teachers’ perspective and there is no consensus on the right answers to the aforementioned questions. Hendrickson indicated that there was little empirical basis to decide how error correction should be carried out in terms of when, how often and by whom (John-Steiner, 1994, p. 92). Therefore, there is no clear position indicated as to which errors should be corrected and by whom, how and when they should be corrected. The issue of error correction in language teaching is backed up by various theories, concepts and ideas, which have been put forward by various scholars and researchers. First, the presentation-practice-production, which is normally referred to as the ‘PPP’ model states that when a rule is presented, learners practice it through conventional exercises and are able to produce grammatical structures correctly on their own (Huttner, Mehlmauer-Larcher, Reichl, & Schiftner, 2011, p. 84). This model is faulty because it presumes that through practice and exercise alone, a language learner can be able to produce grammatical structures. However, in the real learning environment, there has to be guidance on how to attain the desired language proficiency and provision of feedback through error correction. According to the teachability hypothesis, learners can learn through absorption of morphosyntatical features in a predetermined and internal order that is parallel to instruction (Huttner, Mehlmauer-Larcher, Reichl, & Schiftner, 2011, p. 85). It is therefore, not worthy to try to teach learners grammatical features for which they are not ready to learn. Learners should be allowed to absorb or learn new features gradually as they develop and during incidental encounters during communicative procedures. This means that there should be comprehensive input provided to learners, and this is the best way for learners to learn language. Further still, there should be no explanations or practice, but learners are should be left to learn intuitively and unconsciously. This hypothesis is a contradiction because input can only be converted into intake through conscious learning and there is no such a thing as learning unconsciously. On the other hand, according to the skill theory, language learning is presumed to be the learning of a skill (Huttner, Mehlmauer-Larcher, Reichl, & Schiftner, 2011, p. 89). Therefore, the process of learning a language involves stages. In the first stage, an instructor presents declarative knowledge by explaining the target behaviour in terms of words and the learner understands it at a theoretical level. In the second stage, the presented knowledge is converted into procedure through the provision of practice (Huttner, Mehlmauer-Larcher, Reichl, & Schiftner, 2011, p. 89). Practice is meant to make the learner implement behaviour that has been explained and carry out rehearsal exercises to increase his or her skills. In the third and final stage, the learner becomes automatically skilled in the procedural knowledge so that s/he can carry out the behaviour in an accurate and rapid manner without reference to theory. Various scholars have carried out various studies on error correction with an aim of addressing some questions and problems. For instance, Ellis carried out a study to find out and examine previous studies that have focused on the teacher narrowly. The main aim was to find out what teachers say and do when they teach a second language and why they do it (Ellis, 2012, p. 146). From the aims of this study, it is evident that the researcher did not delve into the issue or error correction in language teaching and its evolution. Schulz carried out a study to find out the beliefs about grammar teaching and error correction among U.S post-secondary foreign language learners (Arabski & Wojtaszek, 2011, p. 83). The study also sought to find out which of the groups was more disposed to instructive intervention. This study addressed the issue of corrective feedback in language learning among learners and teachers. Separately, preference to error correction among students is an issue that has been addressed by Griffiths and Chunhong. This study also addressed the issue of corrective feedback. In addition, Pawlak focused on the relationship between oral errors in fluency and accuracy oriented activities (Arabski & Wojtaszek, 2011, p. 83). The major about error correction in language teaching have been outlined by Hendrickson. These issues include whether learner’s errors should be corrected and when they should be corrected. Also, scholars have sought to establish the errors that should be corrected, by who and how they should be corrected. However, as noted by Hendrickson, there is little empirical basis to decide how error correction should be carried out in terms of when, how often and by whom. Some theorists consider error correction useless. For instance, Truscott and Krashen claim that error correction in language learning influences a leaner’s immediate performance only and does not affect the general competence of a learner (Tomková, 2013, p. 71). Learners have been identified as the sole determinants of improvement of performance, regardless of the efforts of language teachers to correct errors. This applies, especially in the long run. These theorists argue that correction of mistakes and errors does not equip learners with knowledge on how to use the problematic rule correctly (Tomková, 2013, p. 71). However, these theorists have not factored in the role played by the established learning outcome or objective. For instance, in a learning situation where the main and mandatory objective is to ensure language proficiency, error correction is expected to achieve desired effect in the long term because the learner has no option apart from mastering the new language. Such a learner is therefore, expected to take error correction or corrective feedback seriously. Truscott claims that error correction in oral practice is inefficient because language teachers offer inconsistent sometimes wrong corrective feedback and that sometimes the act of error correction hurts learners (Tomková, 2013, p. 71). In addition, Truscott is of the opinion that learners may not take corrections seriously while some learners do not learn from correction and correction may interfere with fluency (Tomková, 2013, p. 71). These claims may not be valid because majority of the people perceive error correction as a process of natural learning and most learners always welcome corrections. In addition, language teachers are professionals who know the right time to correct and what they should correct. Therefore, error correction in language teaching is an issue that has evolved over time and is viewed differently by theorists and practitioners currently. References Arabski, J., & Wojtaszek, A., 2011. Aspects of Culture in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning. New York: Springer Press. Block, D., 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E., 2000. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V., 2008. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th Edition). London: Hodder Education Press. Ellis, R., 2012. Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Press. House, S., 2011. Inglés. Investigación, innovación y buenas prácticas = Teacher Development. Madrid: Editorial GRAÓ Press. Huttner, J., Mehlmauer-Larcher, B., Reichl, S., & Schiftner, B., 2011. Theory and Practice in EFL Teacher Education: Bridging the Gap. London: Short Run Press Limited. John-Steiner, V., 1994. Sociocultural Approaches to Language and Literacy: An Interactionist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kelly, S., 2006, February 17. Error Correction. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 20 May, 2014]. Oladejo, J. A., 1993. Error Correction in ESL: Learners Preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10 (2), pp. 71-89. Tedick, D. J. (1998, May). Research on Error Correction and Implications for Classroom Teaching. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 20 May, 2014]. Tomková, G., 2013. Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools: Error Correction in Spoken Practice. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 20 May, 2014]. Read More